Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coinswitch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus from detailed source analysis indicates independent, SIGCOV reliable sourcing not available. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinswitch

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company does not meet the notability criteria per WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sources mentioned are trivial mentions and promotional in nature, failing to provide the depth needed to establish notability. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. I have found no in-depth coverage of coinswitch in reliable sources. Largely seems to be another generic crypto exchange this time focused on the market in India.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying 'no in-depth coverage in reliable sources' is incorrect, what is true is that this is crowded by routine coverage, press releases and sources under WP:ILLCON. Money ≠ notability, though this is India's largest crypto exchange. Along with Coinswitch mainly being known for its products which have received sustained coverage meeting WP:NPRODUCT, there is much coverage to support NCORP criteria. Forbes article, The Economic Times, Mint, are some examples. Hmr (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The three articles in the comment above are ok, Forbes is a staff report, second one is about the company, Mint is an interview with the CEO but has some other info. These look okl Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the [Reuters] article is pretty good arms-length reporting on results annouced by the company (e.g., talking about competitors, saying they can't confirm some claims). Agree with Oaktree b that Forbes is good and independent, and Economic Times has its heart in the right place. Mint is borderline puff piece, not just a press release but not very independent either, but the first three are sufficient to meet WP:NORG Oblivy (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes India article listed above relies pretty heavily on comments from company founders and is part of a list of interviews/commentaries for "tycoons of tomorrow". It is not offering much in the way of significant secondary coverage. Interviews with CEOs are considered primary under WP:NORG so the article from Mint cannot be considered for notability. The article from Reuters appears to be independent + secondary, but it largely reads as routine coverage of the company's valuation after receiving venture capital funding. With the practice of opaque paid-for coverage in India, including Times group properties, I am also concerned whether the article from The Economic Times can be considered reliable as portions read like puffery. It also includes many comments from the company's leaders, though not as many as the Forbes piece. I stand by my earlier assessment that there is a lack of notable coverage in reliable sources and believe this article should be deleted unless additional significant coverage from well-established reliable sources can be found.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comment, none of the references provide sufficient significant in-depth "independent content" to establish notability as per NCORP criteria. The Forbes Indian article relies entirely on information provided by the company and via interview, fails ORGIND. The Economic Times article is another example of a company profile which relies on the same methodology and has no "independent content", also fails ORGIND. The Mint article is a straight-up interview, fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I think the Reuters article is good but the Forbes and Economic Times articles comments about the company are basically only in the form of quotes from the founders. Depending on the future of crypto in India this very well could be a notable business soon but don't think we have enough independent coverage of the business now. Moritoriko (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.