Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Premier League

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. The source assessment by IceWelder has not been rebutted. Sandstein 09:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Premier League

[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)

Non-notable e-sports platform, references do not indicate a pass of WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, simply trivial funding mentions based on company PR. nearlyevil 665 05:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been improving this article by removing non-encyclopedic content and correcting tone. There were also multiple non-credible citations which I have removed.

I would further state that MPL is a large E-sports platform, popular in India and South East Asia. It has a userbase of over 60 million and is close to being a unicorn startup. Based on the nature of the business it is pivotal that people have access to credible neutral information about the platform and Wikipedia is the right place for this. To address your concerns on WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV below are 3 additional articles that establish the notability of the company, these are currently not included in the article references.

[1], [2], [3] Rickypediaindia (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The few sources that exist for this topic are either routine coverage (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL) or passing mentions (WP:PASSING), neither of which makes the article notable. The closest to in-depth coverage is the Forbes article cited above, but that one is written by a contributor. Per WP:FORBES: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." IceWelder [✉] 12:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:ca01:31c0:9083:e369:a827:b9a3 (talk • contribs)

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.