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. Analyzing the provided sources (including the first page of results from Cunard (t c)'s Google search suggestion) shows that all of them except the Firstpost article are routine press-release based coverage of obtaining funding, making them invalid when considering the general notability guideline. There's a YourStory page/article about them, but that's of dubious independence because companies request to be covered by them. One remaining truly independent source does not provide sufficient evidence of notability. —Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KartRocket[edit]

KartRocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage of fundraising does not confer notability. Brianhe (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - My first searches found nothing aside from News links. Nothing yet to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose the deletion Same story here...no research done by Joseph2302 before nominating this page for deletion like in case of many other pages. Just do a google search and there are more than 50 news stories about the website and some of them are below:

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/kartrocket-helping-small-time-e-tailers-take-off-104225.html http://yourstory.com/2015/01/1900-active-stores-kartrocket/ http://www.moneycontrol.com/sme-stepup/news/kartrocket_set_to_transform_online_selling_for_smes-1364485.html http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-22/news/55318773_1_nirvana-venture-advisors-kartrocket-bigfoot-retail http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/kartrocket-raises-seed-fund-from-5ideas-startup-superfuel-and-500-startups-113072300585_1.html http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/12/09/kartrocket-opens-up-shipping-service-shiprocket-to-all-e-tailers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those links aren't very significant or in-depth and at best this is a case of too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister What do you mean by too soon? Is there any maturity time defined in wikipedia guidelines? Also, can you mention which one is not significant? These all are leading publications of India and if these are not considered notable then I wonder if any Indian brand will even be able to be listed on wikipedia!! Andrewjohn39 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By too soon I mean there's not enough coverage yet and by significant I mean it isn't in-depth coverage. I'm open to drafting/userfying the article to your userspace so you can save and work it. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Firstpost article provides seven paragraphs of coverage about the subject. It is in-depth coverage. The other sources also provide several paragraphs of coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I will go for Keep. As a news search results in lots of significant and reliable sources. Should pass GNG.

- Arr4 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lots of significant and reliable sources" such as ... ? Or are you disagreeing with SisterTwister and endorsing Andrewjohn39's list? Worldbruce (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Arr4 (prior to a rename) has previously disclosed they were paid _{(admins only)} to write a promotional article that Andrewjohn39 also promoted. Meatpuppetry seems likely. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that we need more than coverage of funding to pass WP:CORP. Apart from that, all I can find is brief mentions. Open to reviewing this in the future if more sources appear. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Tilve, Priyanka (2013-08-20). "KartRocket: Helping small time e-tailers take off". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  2. Gooptu, Biswarup (2014-10-22). "KartRocket raises $2 million in Series A funding". The Times Group. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  3. Deoras, Neha Pandey (2013-07-23). "Kartrocket raises seed fund from 5ideas Startup Superfuel and 500 Startups". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow KartRocket to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are numerous other sources in a Google News search. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (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.