Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evage (2nd nomination)

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. There was some erosion in the keep position over time as the reliability of the TechCrunch source was contested effectively. There was concern as to the independence of the other sources. Overall, there was a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evage

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Nominated for deletion, soft deleted for lack of participation, refunded. And yet this Indian electric vehicle company is not notable, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP sourcing is in the main press releases about battery supply and sales wins, routine funding - WP:SERIESA. Beyond the patchy sourcing here, WP:BEFORE reveals no reason for notability out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Transportation, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This company looks important in the area, and if Amazon starts buying them... I believe the article starts out ok, has had some serious editors recently, the socking looks under control, and the article could easily explode. Sammy D III (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:ORG with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are numerous additional mentions at google news many of which appear independent which could add further notability to the page, so the page could be improved, but doesn't warrant being deleted. Per subsequent discussion, references to not appear to have enough independent content to qualify. Locu (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Locu, I'm interested to see which sources you believe meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, especially WP:SIRS/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND - can you point to any specific paragraph/section in any particular source that you believe meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The TechCrunch article appears independent and provides significant coverage of the subject. I think the bulk of the article qualifies so I won't paste the whole thing here. The author of that article covers transportation/ev/battery articles for TC and appears independent of the subject. A second (weaker) source would be thebetterindia.com which has a fair amount of information and quotes from the company, it looks independent. While one, or maybe both, of these articles might have received some facts or inspiration from a press release, they do have their own independent analysis and the bulk of the article is not content from a press release or the company. Most of the other sources are redundant press releases and could be cleaned out to improve the article. Locu (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Locu, first take note of the date of the article - Jan 14th 2022 - the same date as other articles discussing the funding announcement in Inc42, The Startup Lab, Autocar Pro, India Times, Techpluto, etc, etc. Leaving aside the WP:TECHCRUNCH warning on the reliability of this publisher, once you read the other articles the entire TechCrunch article relies entirely on a Press Announcement and comments from company execs. Just about every paragraph is attributed to an investor, Shakkers - who clearly is not someone unaffiliated with the company. The remaining paragraphs are no different to the other articles covering the same announcement. I don't need you to "paste the whole thing" but can you indicate which paragraphs you believe are sufficient to meet the criteria (in particular ORGIND) by quoting the first couple of words? A similar request for the The Better India reference. The first few paragraphs is a generic description of the funding round recently closed and the company, nothing significant nor in-depth, the rest relies entirely on an interview with the founder and CEO. Please indicate which paragraphs/sections you believe meet ORGIND, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Your experience and comments have highlighted some things I missed, thank you for pointing them out. The TechCrunch article may have an independent author, but the independence of the content is indeed questionable - especially given the date correlation that you pointed out. The independent writer did contribute a bit to the article, but not a lot. Further, the google news I pointed out earlier also upon deeper inspection mostly seems to be connected to the same press release. I'll del my earlier recommendation. Locu (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: Meets WP:GNG with WP:RS. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Can any of the Keep !voters point to any specific paragraph/section in any particular source that they claim meets GNG/NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 5 April 2023 (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.