Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inshorts (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 keep‎. Closing as keep since sources indicating notability are present, which can be incorporated into the article and can be used for further expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts

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)

Re-created article, twice deleted previously for not meeting WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Five references are used to cite the names of three personnel. Five more refer only to to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and still doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail to establish WP:GNG as per nom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. ~~Delete. No WP:CORPDEPTH present in the sources.~~—Alalch E. 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD has reminded me of the importance of looking for sources, not relying on just those present in the article before forming an opinion and also why previous AfDs are not always relevant. Inshorts appears to have been the subject of an entire chapter in Digital First: Entrepreneurial Journalism in India, published in 2023 by Oxford University Press. This is perfect coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the...company." There's also some interesting coverage published by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers. Coverage also from the Business Standard adds to the sense of general notability, and this is without searching in any of the many other languages of India. It appears to be one of the most-popular news apps in the world's most populous country (a democracy with a competitive news business). Find it hard to imagine a comparable American or British company being nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I always look for sources but that OUP source is something I did not find. I will see about expanding the article using it. —Alalch E. 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also missed that source. However, five days later, nobody has added content related to it, or included it as a reference, and we still only have a seven-sentence stub with five references used to cite the names of three personnel, and five more referring only to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. As it stands, sure, the company's app may well be hugely popular in India - but that's not in the article, either. Notability is not demonstrated. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per AusLondonder. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (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.