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

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lybrate
• Articles for deletion/Lybrate (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lybrate (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)

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)