Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoAt Lifestyle

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoAt Lifestyle

BoAt Lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate version exist at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle — Rejected. UPE. RPSkokie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. RPSkokie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the sources, it is notable. The only problem is it's a stub. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources on it to meet WP:GNG. Although it may require a cleanup and more info in the future. GR86 (📱) 13:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the editors said above. Contributor008 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – It's a stub and needs cleanup, but that doesn't prevent the article from being kept. The sources are adequate for the WP:GNG. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Dudhhr, if you could articulate on which of the sources meet WP:NCORP and which parts of the source assessment below you disagree with that would be great! Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @VickKiang: I agree with the source analysis and the delete arguments below. I have struck my keep !vote. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the below source analysis and the WP:PROMO found in the article. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your update. VickKiang (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a review of the sources in the article, per WP:NCORP, which per WP:ORGCRIT provides guidance on how to apply the WP:PROMO section of WP:NOT to articles.
  • 1: boAt wants to trade its branding paddle for an IP motor (The Ken, 2021) - this seven-graf article begins with anonymous sources complaining about the company, includes information from boAt’s co-founder Aman Gupta, and discusses raised capital and personnel changes. This does not appear to provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability.
  • 2: Boat set to float Rs 2,000-crore IPO, eyes $1.5-2 billion valuation (Economic Times, 2022) - this is an example of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, because it is an announcement and routine coverage of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts [...] expansions, acquisitions, mergers, and a capital transaction and it is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, so there is insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability.
  • 3: Report on Consumer Devices in India is described in the cite in the article as "Redseer report" but the report does not state this, and instead cites Redseer for some information. I have searched the https://redseer.com website and have not found this report.
  • 4: Speakers: boAt in India 2020 Brand Report, March 2022 "This Brand Report covers boAt in the speakers market of India and is based on data from the Statista Global Consumer Survey. Topics include: Customers' demographic profile, Customer lifestyle, Marketing touchpoints" and costs $495. While it is challenging to assess the source without access, the description suggests this source provides WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • 5: India Wearable Market Reports Another Record Quarter Shipping 23.8 Million Units In 3Q21, Says IDC, 2021. The WP:CORPDEPTH of this source seems limited at best because it is focused on the market generally, with data about marketshare for various companies, including BoAt.
  • 6: Warburg Invests $100 mn in boAt - this is trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, and substantially quotes co-founders of BoAt Gupta and Mehta, as well as BoAt investors Vishal Mahadevia, MD and head, Warburg Pincus India and Kanwaljit Singh, founder and managing partner, Fireside Ventures, so this source also is not sufficient per WP:ORGIND to support notability.
  • 7 & 9: How a young Indian brand is beating its Chinese rivals at their own game (Quartz, 2021) - this source lacks WP:ORGIND because it includes quotes from boAt co-founders Gupta and Mehta, and what "boAt has said", but does have more depth than most sources.
  • 8: boAt eyes make-in-India push with $100 million from Warburg Pincus - similar to the Hindustan Times source noted above, this is trivial coverage about a capital transaction that also fails WP:ORGIND for its reliance on what "boAt founders Aman Gupta and Sameer Mehta told TOI" and a quote from investor Singh.
  • 10: Dixon Tech gains 5% on pact with boAt for new twin wireless speakers (Business Standard, 2021) - this source is subscription blocked but appears to be trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an announcement of an expansion of business: "Dixon Technologies (India) shares traded 5 per cent higher at Rs 15,214, also their fresh record high, on the BSE on Thursday after the company announced that it has entered into an agreement with Imagine Marketing Private Limited (boAt) for manufacturing of Twin Wireless Speakers."
  • 11: boAt forms jt venture with Dixon Tech to manufacture wireless audio products in India (HinduBusinessLine, 2022) - this source is a similar annoucement as above, and lacks WP:ORGIND because it is substantially based on quotes from boAt CEO Vivek Gambhir, and Saurabh Gupta, CFO, Dixon Technologies.
  • 12: Ashneer Grover, Aman Gupta fuel Shark Tank meme explosion (Economic Times, 2022) - this is about Boat cofounder Gupta appearing on Shark Tank and creating memes, and WP:INHERITORG indicates that his personal popularity does not transfer notability to the company.

Per WP:N, even if an article meets WP:GNG, it can still be excluded per WP:NOT, and per WP:NCORP, the apparent lack of WP:MULTSOURCES that meet the WP:SIRS guideline support delete due to WP:PROMO at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The keep votes is a collection of vague WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PERABOVE votes that IMO the closer should give less weight as they do not attempt to provide on any concrete evidence on which sources are suitable for NCORP. GR86, Contributor008, Dudhhr, that an article has numerous sources doesn't automatically make WP:GNG or WP:NCORP met. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis and Akevsharma's decline on the draft. A series of routine announcements on expansions, transactions investments, and routine reports of financial results are insufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. IMO the Quartz source goes into decent detail for WP:CORPDEPTH to be met (and is independent, secondary, and RS), but the rest are not. A WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions or routine coverage while announcing the founders or more routine announcements on transactions and investments, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Therefore, could the keep voters explain which two or three sources pass WP:NCORP? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The company has not been mentioned in any reliable news outlets, using vague information and details collated from unreliable links WP:NOTOPINION may/will further harm the company. The information present in the page is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING The Ajan (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You copy pasted the comment on wrong page. It is not at all linking to this page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Excellent source analysis shows there is no choices. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 19:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought to vote week keep then during writing this comment, I realised it should be keep. Ken It has negative comments too from in-house journalists and includes popular chain like "Vijay Sales, and Chroma" who denied to sell the boat products ( No anonymous name). The Same goes with Quartz, It's a myth that if quotes taken from the company's spokesperson then that is not an independent source and all the in-depth comments from the journalist become invalid. Well, IDC Report 1, IDC Report2 is a global independent report which is sharing that boat is ranking in top brands from 7-8 Quarters, here is the another Globalpremienews source. If you want to read full report you need to contact them, the email id listed on the same page. Not finding Redseer Report doesn't mean, it is not cited. There are plenty of sources referring to the same report. Plenty of materials hosted on website are not searchable. Infact the redseer website search is not functional to find Pdf reports. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These refs you linked are routine reports and info on shipments and market shares obviously fall into of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, being independent is insufficient, how is it also SIGCOV? The same is for a piece on a brand trading. It's a myth that if quotes taken from the company's spokesperson then that is not an independent source and all the in-depth comments from the journalist become invalid- even if we generously assume that is one source counting towards WP:NCORP, multiple is needed. VickKiang (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Plenty of materials hosted on website are not searchable- a vague WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES argument, similar to your assertions of of Plenty of materials and plenty of sources without specifying how NCORP is met- an example IMO of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. the current sources you provided are inadequate. The Global Premier News piece also fails WP:CORPDEPTH, being a routine announcement with a questionably promotional tone (Consumers can also experience the brand’s extensive portfolio on its website, and covers market shares and growth, trivial per WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides, nowhere does the site indicate no editorial policies or the authors being subject matter experts, thus, WP:NEWSORG is not met, nor is it WP:RS. I find your arguments to be unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure if IDC should be counted or not, after your comment. But Those are Industry report Summaries not Financial reports of a particular company. Truly, IDC Links are not significant here. However, we should refer to the whole report. I have written plenty to share that there are lot of media channels, which is referring redseer reports, which indicate it exists. So, if we are not finding it, it doesn't mean it is not there. Could you please also share your views on Ken? After understanding this, I will update my views. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's start with the Redseer report, which you said might be a full version but I could only find this as well. It gives an overview on social media stats, market growth, and sales value details, along with routine information on products. But none of these count towards SIGCOV. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts is trivial. Moreover, the NCORP has a secondary requirement, but that might not always be the case for corporate annual or financial reports per WP:NCORP. I have written plenty to share that there are lot of media channels- there might be a better, Redseer report, but notability requires demonstrable evidence, not just that sources may exist without providing evidence, which seems to me be echoing WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Further, the Ken ref also provides some info on its strategy, but mostly give routine information on profits, monthly run rates, and funds, insufficiently SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 8 November 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.