Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pothi.com

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. Sandstein 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pothi.com

[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 WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The few trivial coverage that exist is related to VC funding or mention this among many in a promising startup type articles , all rely on information/quotations from company sources or interviews with founders. Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. None of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability Razer(talk) 21:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal coverage and sources only provide glancing references. An online search only turns up references from the company itself. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CoI declaration: I am one of the founders. We have been covered by almost all leading newspapers in India in both print and online editions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CoI: Founder of the company here, hence not adding a vote. Providing some reference links Times of India 2016, The Hindu 2012, Hindu Businessline discussing InstaScribe launch in 2012, ToI again in 2012. Interview in Crazy Engineers about our product InstaScribe. Abhaga (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can reviewers please take a look at the links provided by Abhaga? Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources fail the criteria for establishing notability. Looking at the new references provided above, they are, for the most part, churnalism. The Times of India reference from 2016 contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by company sources. The Hindu reference from 2012 likewise contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND as the piece about this company relies entirely on information provided by company sources. The Hindu Businessline reference fails for the same reason - no Independent Content, all information provided by company sources, fails WP:ORGIND. The next ToI reference fails for the same reasons as the first. Finally, this Interview in Crazy Engineers is entirely based on ... an interview with the founder. More churnalism, zero Independent Content, fails ORGIND. Overall, I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we were interviewed for those articles, they are not based on PR material provided by us. They interview multiple people in the industry. Our claim to notability is being the first print-on-demand self-publishing company in India when there were none others. Time based Google search can establish that much. Indian School of Business did a case study on us which is available here: ISB Ivey Publishing Unfortunately, it is a paid source. Abhaga (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2020 (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.