Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZestMoney

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZestMoney

[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)

The article is highly promotional, and the company fails WP:NCORP.

The article has a lot of sources, but they are mostly either primary or trivial (funding rounds). To be specific:

the Digital Creed, TechCrunch, Hindu Businessline, ForbesIndia, LiveMint, and TechCircle sources are all puffy interviews with the CEO with press releases attached - primary at best, possible paid features.
The Business Standard article says that it is not written by Business Standard, and is 'automatically generated' by a syndication feed - so not reliable. (It's also based around a press release with a puffy interview with the CEO, so primary)
The Economic Times article is actually a feature written (in the first person) by the CEOs - not independent.
The VCCircle article gives the company trivial coverage while reporting on an acquisition (but squeezes in an interview with the CEO) - not significant coverage, also primary.
The rest of the sources just report on funding rounds - not significant coverage.

I had a look for better sources, but couldn't find anything that meets the requirements at WP:NCORP for significant, reliable, independent and secondary. There is a lot of trivial/unreliable/primary coverage out there, but nothing that I can find that we could build a reliable article out of. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted. K2323 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mint and Hindu BL are among India's most trusted business newspapers. As for Business Standard, the article does say it is from ANI, which is among the top three wire services in India. When BS says the article comes out of a syndicated feed, it means the article was first published by either ANI or PTI or someone else and an automated program picks it up and publishes it. That's pretty much how the news media industry operates, so terming it not reliable isn't a great option. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't dismissing Mint or Hindu BL - I was saying that the articles are interviews with the CEO, so they are primary sources, and so do not adhere to the requirements at WP:NCORP. (I also note that they are very puffy, and topped up with what appears to be press release content.)

As for the reliability of the automatically written article, I'll leave others to comment on that - but it's still based on an interview with the CEO, and so a primary source.GirthSummit _(blether) 20:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost identical to the G11d version from earlier today. Cabayi (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are more reliable sources on one of the co-founders than the company. But even then, there isn't notability. The company references are mainly funding and general announcements which do not show WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviousadvertising, and not enough sourcing for NCORP. Either reason would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 27 March 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.