Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Magnet

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 no consensus. Discussion's been open for a month and both sides are well-argued. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Magnet[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Shrav81 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to meet all primary criteria for notability. List of references indicate that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. There may be some sources that may not meet WP:RS but I spotted at least 4 sources that do, so the correct remedy would be to attach tags to fix references, not deletion. Further, the assertion that it has received contributions from a single editor is not a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd love to see a lot of the promotional language cleaned up Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of sources, several of which are reliable and independent so notability is there. There is definitely quite a bit of promotional/POV content but that is fixable (and as stated above, this isn't a criteria for deletion anyway). Highway 89 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Non-trivial like: Economic Times and Business Today. Nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Passing mention in anotherBusiness Today and Telegraph India. Trout Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and [WP:ORGIND]]) because I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that references exist that meet the criteria as described in WP:NCORP. There's also a lack of detail provided by those who !voted to Keep and some make no references to policies or guidelines (which, of course, they should). Of those Keep !votes that provide reasons and or refer to policies/guidelines, most are quoted and interpreted incorrectly and/or incompletely. For example, some say that there exists coverage which is "significant" - my opinion is that while some of the publishers may be large/successful/significant, this does not mean that the article is significant. In fact, upon close examination, none of the content is significant since most of it is churnalism and/or derived from primary sources. There are various incomplete interpretations of guidelines - for example, a topic is not automatically notable if it receives coverage in "multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" because it is *also* a *requirement* that the *content* must be independent (and not a series of "interviews" or articles based on interviews/quotations/announcements) as per WP:ORGIND. After an examination of the references, not a single reference includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the references listed by Lightburst above are classic examples of references that fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Economic Times references is classic churnalism complete with photo, history of founders, description of problem, funding history and positive future-looking statement - fails WP:ORGIND and it is clearly not independent content. The Business Today reference is entirely based on information and quotations from the founders and one of the angel investors - again fails WP:ORGIND. Due to the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources offered above are likewise passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP; this is not significant coverage. For example, "Different Strokes: Jade's creative crowdsourcing model" is based on the interview with the co-founders. This is not independent, significant coverage and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2019 (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.