Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FanCode
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- FanCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV per the significant mainstream coverage from the sources. Most of the sources are regarded as reliable and collectively appear to meet the criteria for notability.Akevsharma (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing but WP:MILL, PR spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Funding rounds, funding rounds, announcements and funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Have a look at the source analysis table.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Major national business daily
|
The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES
|
The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation
|
Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Major business focused national daily
|
The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is met and this goes well beyond the routine coverage based on the source analysis done by Akevsharma. It is indeed difficult to accept that a company with 50 million customers falls under WP:MILL. How is it even possible that these sources published by the leading national medias falls under PR spam? Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hey {{u|ChristinaNY]], WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)