- 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 speedy keep. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Inshorts (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)
Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: [1] was closed four days before this AFD was opened with a suggestion that sources mentioned in that discussion should be added to the article. This nomination feels premature. ~ A412 talk! 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. I only see one reliable and independent source about this company; that is not enough coverage. Also, much of the text is about one business person who helped to found it, rather than the company itself. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's an entire 19-page-long chapter in an OUP book completely about this topic: doi:10.1093/oso/9780198879657.003.0005. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Contributor892z (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- First, a TROUT to the nominator for bringing this AfD 4 days after the prior one was closed as keep, and compounding the issue by not ensuring that the sources identified in that recent discussion (in which they participated) were either added to the article or listed here. It just creates more work for the limited group of editors who participate at AfD. It also makes closing more difficult because the closer has no easy way to determine if those sources were considered by delete !voters. Aside from that, as Asilvering noted (and echoing AusLondonder, who identified the link in the previous discussion) there is an entire chapter about the company in an Oxford University Press publication, so presumably no self-publishing issues there. I cannot read the chapter, but the abstract strongly suggests WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH are met - It's even titled "Inshorts: A Success Story of Short-Form Journalism" and the TOC on the sidebar suggests thorough coverage. Two other links AusLondonder found and not mentioned yet here and again here, both of which appear superior to the existing sources in the article. I'm at weak keep because I can't read the Oxford Press chapter and I'm not certain whether the newspapers are among those known to accept paid content. But under the circumstance I can't get to delete without those answers. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:27, 21 April 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.