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!} 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EBikeGo

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and the products section reads like promotional material. All of the coverage of this company seems to consist of trivial announcements (for example, product releases, funding, hiring, and acquisitions) in trade publications. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, India, and Maharashtra. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sbuject is notable accourding to WP:PSTS, other article are using same product section check Ather Energy, there might be some trivial articles but not all, there are my good sources attached to the article. Starcruexz (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: First, notability is not determined by PSTS. It is determined by WP:NCORP, the Wikipedia guideline for notability for corporations. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide three sources that you believe prove that this corporation is notable. Each of those sources should be (1) secondary, (2) independent of the company, and (3) reliable, and each source should (4) provide significant coverage of the corporation. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts pls check [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Starcruexz (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some more [10][11] Starcruexz (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any of these were cited in the article at the time of my nomination, I don't think they establish notability. For other sources, it would be helpful if you could summarize what each source says. You might try ((ORGCRIT assess table)). voorts (talk/contributions) 14:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Nominators concerns appear equally about the (bad) article quality, the sources exceed routine coverage. IgelRM (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are about notability. I noted the promotional tone because I think that is often relevant in deletion discussions. For example, some users might !vote to speedy delete an article for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of sources provided by Starcruexz below:

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?
Financial Express	Seems to be based on press release/interview of company partnering with the article subject.	Routine announcement of business partnership.
Brands Equity	Interview published in a trade publication.	Routine announcement of brand partnership.
Economic Times Tech	Product announcement based on press release.	Routine product announcement.
India Today	Product announcement that appears to be based on a press release with no independent reporting or context.	Routine product announcement.
Economic Times Auto	Product announcement based on press release and quotes from company officials.	Routine company acquisition announcement.
Mint		The wrong source appears to be linked; this is a story about something completely unrelated. If the intent was to link to this story about a routine acquisition, I already noted in my nom that that source does not provide significant coverage.
Business Standard	Announcement of setting up manufacturing plant based on press release and quotes from company officials.	Routine announcement.
Mint	Appears to be based on press release.	Routine funding announcement.
EnergyWorld	Interview with company founder and COO.	Overview of what the company's plans are.
News18	Announcement of business partnership based on press release.	Routine business partnership.
Gadgets360	Announcement of manufacturing plant based on company press release.	Routine announcement.

To meet the notability guideline for corporations, there must be multiple sources, each of which must have significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources. Coverage is not significant if it is based on routine announcements and coverage is not independent if it is based on reporting that substantially repeats press releases (churnalism). None of the sources above meet those guidelines and I have not found any other sources that establish this company's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has a whopping 56 sources cited, and the above is just short of 20% of those sources (assuming that there are no repeat citations in the article). It is unlikely that the remaining sources cited in the article establish notability; just skimming through the list of references and looking at their titles and publications show that they appear to be largely routine announcements about some of the same events provided in the above sources). In any event, I note that the burden in a deletion discussion is on those arguing to keep an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a non-notable company and very likely the article is promotional: but whatever the case, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to assemble a large number of insignificant sources to make it look as if there's something worth noting here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources would you deem not "insignificant"? There are similar articles on Ola Electric and Ather Energy. IgelRM (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about article X is not a good argument at AfD. The existence of an article does not imply that a topic itself is notable. Those pages might also fail NCORP; Ather Energy has been tagged as promotional for 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page existence doesn't have in-depth, independent coverage about the "company" by the journalist. Major sources are all about launches, funding, and expansion. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all delete-votes, not notable. BoraVoro (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a good press campaign that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A lot of churunalism but nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@BoraVoro@Chiswick Chap@Voorts i will try to solve the issue and find and add some reliable source, meanwhile i would like to know that what is the meaning of significant covrage and indepentent souce ?, please send me some links from Ola Electric or any silimer article to understand your prospctive on significant covrage and indepentent souce.

significant covrage might be the issue but in my knowladge all the links that i have added is indepentent souce for exmple all the source in the above table is not directly related to eBikeGo. Starcruexz (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz:, you are the second editor to bring up Ola Electric so hopefully you saw the previous response. Many of the links provided by those voting are what you will need to review. For instance, WP:NCOPR is the main guideline. You can review WP:ORGCRIT which will help you determine the proper sources to use and also WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the depth of coverage needed to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: I have an explanation of what I think significant coverage means in a user essay that I've written. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts Thanks let m check Starcruexz (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts i found some sources with mentions of EBikeGo on scholor, pls check [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Starcruexz (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: I am not your research assistant. It is your responsibility to explain why you think these sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 13 are the same source, authored by an organization that "collaborates with industry" and EBikeGo is only mentioned once on page 8. 14 only mentions EBikeGo once on page 13. 15 is by the same people as sources 12 and 13, and EBikeGo is again only briefly mentioned once on page 100. 16 mentions EBikeGo twice on pages 65 and 67.

None of these contain significant coverage, which requires detailed discussion of the company.

In the future, please explain why the sources you are providing contain significant coverage. Posting links and asking others to do the work for you is not how AfD discussions should go. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (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.