Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teachmint

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. Just to note that keep arguments based on GNG don’t address the requirements of NCORP. Delete voters have been given more weight as they have explained their reasoning. Some of the keeps by bare assertion simply cannot stand with refuting the central arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teachmint

[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)

Fails NCORP as it lacks multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the company. The promotional writing style makes it look like it was written by someone associated with the company. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject covered enough significant coverage from reliable references which are independent of the subject. Not the entire article is promotional. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. DMySon (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:DMySon
The Economic Times	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	The Economic Times is a reliable reference per consensus.	While not primarily about Teachmint. Though the website is subscription based but the article contains two paragraphs about the subject.	✔ Yes
Forbes	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	WP:FORBES	The article contains two paragraphs about the subject. Independently written by Yue Wang.	✔ Yes
The Times of India	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there).	WP:TOI	The entire article that is written independently by Sindhu Hariharan.	✔ Yes
The Indian Express	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion by the editor	WP:INDIANEXP	Significantly covered and written by K Rathna	✔ Yes
Entrepreneur India	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking.	Entrepreneur India is generally reliable.	Aawrds List distributed to multiple organizations	✔ Yes
The Hindu	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	WP:THEHINDU	Information on webinars and research from schools and colleges.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Forbes contributors are not acceptable per WP:RSP but the remaining seem ok. Zeddedm (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per detailed source analysis provided by Dmyson and the topic passes WP:NCORP. JackFrost987 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uh; that source assessment table has a number of faults. I'm not sure about whether the Economic Times piece is SIGCOV; it's paywalled and I don't have access. Other than that, none of the the sources listed meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes piece is a single paragraph that doesn't satisfy CORPDEPTH, TOI's reliability is disputed (did you even see what WP:TOI says?) and in any case is again a single paragraph that does not satisfy CORPDEPTH. The source that is supposed to be from the Indian Express is, in fact, from The New Indian Express which is a separate paper. I didn't find any discussions of the TNIE at RSP or RSN, though Fowler&fowler's comment (he's an expert on India-related topics) calls it the scum of the gutter here. Granted, it's a few years old, but from what articles I've read in the TINE I've read, I'm not seeing any reason to disagree with him; much of what I've read is heavily editorialised and very biased. I daresay a proper discussion is needed at RSN to settle the matter. The piece in The Hindu is a routine announcement of an acquisition, barely a paragraph long, thus again failing CORPDEPTH. And the piece in Entrepreneur India is a listing of awards won, and merely mentions Teachmint as having won an award. That reaches nowhere close to CORPDEPTH standards. I won't be commenting whether to delete or keep yet, as I'll run my own search for sources once; but I felt I had to point out the problems with the source assessment above. Java Hurricane 12:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, as it appears, Teachmint is indeed notable:
Financial Express (ref 2 in the article): reliable (arm of the Indian Express which is generally reliable), decently long and in-depth enough to pass CORPDEPTH, also secondary and looks independent too.

The Hindu Business Line (source 11): reliable, in-depth enough, secondary, independent.

Business Standard (found on Google): in-depth enough, secondary and independent. The reliability of the Business Standard isn't listed at RSP, but from my experience I think it is okay enough.
The above three sources seem to be enough for Teachmint to pass WP:NCORP; keep, then. The promotional style is certainly a problem, but then AfD is not cleanup. Java Hurricane 13:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You JavaHurricane for the well explanation over my source assessment table. I agreed with your comments and in future i will try to improve my skills on judging the references. DMySon (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of the three sources:

Financial Express - These 7 paragraphs do not satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement. The 1st paragraph is not about the company. The 4th, 6th and 7th paragraphs are quotes by the founders. The 3rd and 5th paragraphs are essentially claims made by the company that begin or end with "company officials inform" and "As per internal data collated by Teachmint". That leaves us with only the 2nd paragraph which is a glowing review of the product. Not sure if this article is independently authored as it is tagged "FE Bureau" (like most of these churnalistic startup stories are).
The Hindu Business Line - More than 50% of the article is again quotes, aims and claims made by the company. The "Live-class feature" section of the article reads like a product brochure issued by the company.
Business Standard - An "independently" authored article which is strangely similar to this "independently-written" piece in Times of India, giving me the impression that these papers may have republished the same press release by making minor modifications and calling it an independent report. Think about it, which journalist would write stuff like "The company is reimagining the infrastructure for education" and "This is highly optimized for education providers across the world" on an independently researched story. M4DU7 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I missed the problems with the third one, should have more looked more deeply. I still think that sources 1 and 2 are in-depth enough to meet CORPDEPTH; a lot of coverage that I've read about people and companies is of that sort, featuring a good deal of words from the subject or representatives. I have fairly strict standards when reviewing sources about people and companies, especially due to my experience with spam and UPE in these areas. For my own part, I feel the first two sources are decent enough. Java Hurricane 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote per analysis below, I was evidently wrong in characterising the sources. Java Hurricane 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and `non-notable. Almost all. the references are just about funding or PR. The financial Express article is PR based, relying on what the founders say about their own company. Hindu Business Line, ditto. Business Standard is a copy of a press release published in some of the other "references". Nothing else is even remotely usable. To evaluate references, it is necessary to read them. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with JavaHurricane's review of the source table and M4DU7/DGG's review of the three (FE, HBL and BS) other sources. I wasn't able to unearth any other WP:SIRS source from search engines. Hemantha (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with reliable sources indicated and analyzed by DMySon. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source assessment table is designed for WP:GNG and is often abused when it is used for NCORP-related topics. This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent (i.e. "Editorially Independent") from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.

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".
As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet the criteria on its own, we don't look at the "volume" in aggregate
"Independent content" - something which has been ignored in the source assessment table above - 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.

None of the references either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria as they rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs - as admitted by some Keep !voters above - and the remaining passages are not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided in evaluation table above look good accept Forbes contributors are not acceptable per WP:RSP. Zeddedm (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the references in the table aren't acceptable for a number of reasons and I don't see anything else that would be. That said, references do exist and some of them are borderline, like the one from multiple sources that might be based on a press release but there's really no definitive way to tell. So I'm not super invested in delete as an outcome. Although all things considered it would still probably be the "best" option. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 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.