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. Consensus is that WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoinDCX[edit]

CoinDCX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A complete promotional article that is trying to hinge on routine announcements around funding or campaigns or brand ambassadors. There is no WP:CORPDEPTH. Scroll article has some merit but most of it is interviewish. If it was a biography, it could have helped but for companies, WP:CORPDEPTH requires actual independent analysis, discussion and commentary about the company and not just telling what is already known or said or coming from the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now ,The company is notable and frequently mentioned in news and media. But the article is written like a promotion, with giving more imprtance to their achievements rather than what an encyclopaedia required. A copyediting by an experienced editor should solve the problem. 007sak (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not temporary. Keep'For now' or 'For later' has no meaning I feel. Delete 'for now' might have sense since non-notable topics can become notable in future. But it's rare for notable topics to become non-notable unless there are policy change. Frequently mentioned in news and media is not one of the notability criteria. What we need is WP:CORPDEPTH in WP:RS written in a way that's WP:IS. That's not being met here. If others feel differently, please provide examples of how it is being met. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company is the first and most popular unicorn cryptocurrency company registered in India valued at over a billion dollars. Daily coverage in mainline news media as well as other channels. Definitely notable enough and lots of quality sources available online from mainline news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:613C:AB76:5D0E:D8E:CCCE:C14E (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Keep comment is by an anonymous IP address. Likely COI case is an indication is such activities happen Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Added some reliable references to the article. 007sak (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with WP:RS but with WP:CORPDEPTH. Will be helpful to have at least three examples that give definitive clarity that they qualify WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description about company and their services in Forbes [1], Bloomberg [2], The Hindu [3], Quartz [4], The Times of India [5], Mint [6], Indian Express [7]

Also have trivial mentions in international news publications including Reuters [8] and The Washington Post [9][10] 007sak (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes has a couple of lines about the company and some quotes. Bloomberg is mostly funding related. The Hindu is again a couple of lines with some quotes. Very typical industry story situation. Qz - it is in-depth but not following WP:CORPDEPTH; it is simply a retell of what was told and there is barely any independent analysis or commentary. Economic times - funding related. Live mint is not considered WP:RS. Financial Express says 'brandwagon'. Reuters is a single mention in the entire article. Same goes for both the Washington post. Once again, what we are looking at is WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of these come close to it but others are far away. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kindly review these sources

1) https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/coindcx-ropes-ayushmann-khurrana-for-its-latest-campaign/article37052089.ece 2) https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/storyboard/storyboard-dive-into-the-seductive-world-of-crypto-advertising/ 3) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/coindcx-launches-otc-desk-for-institutional-crypto-trading-in-india/articleshow/87159824.cms (Nikhilaug (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment - Hindu Businessline and ET are announcements. Fornes fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Very much of a industry story situation again. Considering there are SPAs and IPs trying to game this AFD, this should perhaps be protected from direct recreation in mainspace and should go via AFC for future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. However, draftification can be an another option. -Hatchens (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to draft space. Note: as pointed out by the nom, some keepers appear to be violating the WP:Canvassing guideline. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is either trivial, not from RS or not indepdendent. The extent of WP:CORPDEPTH is problematic here because no RS gives it enough weight to give substantial coverage of the company, with maybe the exception of Qz India, which only goes as far as telling us that their userbase is from young people and has 3.5 million users. It's hard to judge whether Qz has looked into these claims itself, because it doesn't attribute them to the founders, which makes me question its independence. Pilaz (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:12, 6 November 2021 (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.