Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecom Express

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 detailed argument that this fails NCORP has only been challenged by poor arguments based on assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ecom Express (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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are WP:ROUTINE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Independent means that the coverage is intellectually independent and from reliable sources, I have stated all of that in the comment I believe the article needs to stay on Wikipedia, If you request any edits on the page I would be happy to do the same. --Zubin1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
  • Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria.
This from Business Today examines "How Warehousing is Changing" and as part of this long detailed article, mentions a couple of warehousing companies including the topic company. It describes one of the new warehouses of the topic company but the article does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
This from Economic Times is a commentary on reported annual accounts noting the company posted a 37% growth in revenue. No other details, no in-depth information, no "Independent Content", relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
In summary, not a single reference meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are at least 2 sources (Forbes and Economic Times) that are significantly about the company. Yes, some sources are probably "based on" press releases - a good deal of what we read in any newspaper is "based on" press releases, as that is how journalists get started. But I see no proof that press releases were involved here, nor that they were used verbatim. As for the award, I don't think that anyone is claiming that the award itself is significant - however, there are two articles about the company's commitment to employing women. Those are articles about the company, even if they are brief. Lamona (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody said anything about press releases being used "verbatim" and that isn't the test - you've already admitted that the articles are "based on" PR, that's enough to fail ORGIND unless the journalist adds their own stuff too. We need original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to any paragraph/sentence in those articles (please link the articles as there are multiples from each source) so the rest of us can see what you mean. Thanks. HighKing++ 12:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepstrike duplicate !vote Here are a few more Independent articles showcasing independent research by the writer that pass WP:ORGIND
The logistics of logistics: From manufacturer to consumer [4] the article focuses on an in-depth view of the writer written independently about ecom express warehouses.
Is Ecom Express India’s Next Logistics Tech Unicorn In The Making? In this article, the writer has done detailed research on the growth of the company. [5]
The company has also won many prestigious awards such as The Last Mile Partner of the Year award in 2018 by Global Logistics Excellence Awards [6]
It has also been featured in The LIMCA Book Of Records 2018 for 'Fastest Setting Up Of Delivery Centers By A Logistics Company In India' · Zubin1 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:SIRS. Each reference must meet all the criteria.
  • This is an article where approx half is about an Ecom warehouse where the journalist observes and describes what happens in that warehouse with a quote from the senior manager. It has zero in-depth information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Forbes India- you the writer has done detailed research on the growth of the company - sure, that's another way of saying that the journalist interviewed one of the co-founders I suppose. It is a "puff profile" and contains zero "Independent Content". Please point out any part of that article which contains original and independent opinion/analysis/etc that didn't come from the company or the interview. Fails ORGIND
  • None of those awards are "prestigious" for the purposes of establishing notability. A "partner of the year" award is severely limited as to the potential candidates for example. Similarly, the "Fastest Setting Up" award is not regarded as prestigious. There's an argument that every award bestows some prestige on the winner but for the purposes of notability these don't establish notability. See "examples of trivial coverage" in NCORP.
  • Mild delete A lot about funding but not much about their operations, agreements with companies, etc. Gusfriend (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading all the references so far, I believe it passes WP:SIRS as the references provided have significant coverage [7]. Within this reference, the author provides an in-depth coverage about his personal experience stating multiple facts sourced from a visit to the Organization under question. The article seems to be completely independent and it is particularly relevant to note that [Hindustan Times] is one of the most reliable newspapers within the country.
  • The other article by Forbes India [8] that has been referenced herewith, talks about the scale of the company within the Indian market. This article again seems completely independent. A thorough mention of the company within Forbes India also proves enough notability for this to not be questioned at this particular time.
  • The company's initiatives towards Women Empowerment in India [9] is also particularly significant and worthy of mention within an online global encyclopedia as the country makes strides to bring more women into the workforce and empower them on a financial basis within a country where inequality in the workforce is not unheard of. In India, women account only for 19% of the total workforce [10]. Wikiwhywhatnow (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing admin should take note of the number of !votes from newly awakened dormant accounts and/or brand new accounts. HighKing++ 22:15, 1 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ecom_Express&oldid=1180722141"