Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groww (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. Consensus is that sourcing does not support an article Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

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

Groww (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)

Only funding and acquisition news. The whole content is a promo. Behind the moors (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groww has significant coverage (beyond the funding news) across a wide range of sources. Below is the list that is relevant to this audience.
  • Delete Since the author himself has commented above with a list of sources, I assume those are the best possible ones. Forbes India article is long but since all its content is sourced to statements by involved people (founders, investors) with only one (highly flattering) quote from an analyst, it isn't independent. The rest are routine announcements, not much different from press releases. From a brief look at search hits, unable to find anything more than funding news, interviews or press releases. Hemantha (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are not the best possible ones or the only ones. Let me add more for your reference. Ashok Bhat (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ashok2102 Please add links to them for easier access. P.S. Republic TV is a deprecated source and we will not consider it, see WP:REPUBLICTV — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also @Ashok2102, please don't edit comments after multiple editors have replied. At the very least, you should add a note that you've edited your comment in such cases. In this specific case, you should have added a new comment. Read WP:TALK#REVISE for the specific guideline. Hemantha (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable sources and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, all are either regurgitated announcements and PR or rely entirely on interviews or other information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. However, going by your logic, most the Indian financial wiki pages (and I am sure other company pages) will have to be deleted - Angel Broking, Axis Direct, Dhani, Edelweiss, Finvasia, FundsIndia, Geojit Financial, Groww, HDFC securities, ICICIdirect, India Infoline, Karvy Corporate, Kotak Securities, Kuvera.in, Motilal Oswal, Scripbox, Reliance Securities, Religare, Sharekhan, Zerodha. Most of these companies do not need Wiki page. But I naively assumed that Wikipedia would benefit from information on them (atleast 10 years ago when I started it did!). Things seems to have changed a lot in last 10 years (for worse in my opinion). Anyway, good luck with your delete spree. I am out! Ashok Bhat (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion - certainly no company should "need" a wiki page. I understand you're disappointed with my !vote based on our guidelines but I've tried to provide you with detailed reasoning also. If this company was notable then I'm sure references that meet our criteria would exist - try to find references where an unaffiliated third party has written an analysis/opinion about the company. If you believe that those other companies also fail our criteria for notability and have checked their references, feel free to nominate those that fail your checks for deletion. HighKing++ 21:10, 21 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Groww_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078527623"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groww (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.