Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fynd

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. Apart from Eastmain, the "keep"s are by blocked users or users with less than 30 edits. Sandstein 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fynd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As usual with companies of this sort, every reference here is a press release or a mere notice. There are more of them than usual, but no evidence of encyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This bylined article from Economic Times is reasonably in-depth and from a reliable source. The article was published in 2014 and uses the company's previous name, Shopsense. This Business Standard article is behind a paywall but appears to be independent and in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well sourced and met WP:GNG, obviously an article can't meet all WP policies. Every company and article is notable somehow in their respective industry unless an ordinary electric store on the road side. Mia Watson (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's a rather unsuaul opinion, considering that we have a basic principle, WP:NOTDIIRECTORY. How would this make us diffeent from google? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has enough references which falls under Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#India. It was however in minor violation

with WP:NPOV policy which has been corrected. Sachdevpuneet (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article notable but WP:NOTDIRECTORY Applies. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with prejudice: sourcing does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. Yet another nn startup using Wikipedia for advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are some substantial features here: e.g. the Times of India article which although no doubt based on a press release does nevertheless provide information about the capitalization and business model of the company in what is evidently an independent, reliable, secondary source.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Third round startups of this size are rarely notable. Most of the sources in the article are PR driven. BEFORE shows around 42 true google-news hits (after filtering adding a founder's name, since Fynd is not a unique name) - which also seems to be mostly promotional driven (funding round news releases by the VCs and the company, company PR releases).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – sorry, NCORP hasn't been met. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (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.