I disagree that the articles about funding can be disqualified. If they were just a paragraph or two long and about the funding only, then I would agree that they are insufficient to establish notability. But this article from Business Standard goes into detail about KartRocket's history.
In addition, there are two non-funding articles mentioned by Andrewjohn39: 1 from Firstpost and 2 from the business news organization VCCircle. Please reconsider your deletion. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Coverage of funding is WP:ROUTINE — every company that gets more than a small dollar/Rs amount will have articles about gaining the funding; this does nothing more than prove the existence of the company. That's why it doesn't count toward notability, not because of its length.
I was not persuaded by the keep arguments that KartRocket passes GNG or CORP, and thus the delete arguments carried more weight. If you disagree with my reading/judgement of the consensus of this discussion, deletion review is open to you.
Also, please remember that even if we assume two articles is passing GNG, the GNG is not a guarantee that we should have or keep an article about a particular subject. In a particular deletion discussion, the consensus might still be to delete an article because the subject is not sufficiently notable or significant. —Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage...
The sources here provide "deep coverage" because they allow a detailed C-class article to be written about the subject.
The Firstpost article provides roughly 600 words of coverage about the subject. It discusses the company's history. The article verifies that the company was founded in 2002, funded by 5ideas, 500 startups and Jatin Aneja, launched public beta in 2013, had 750 trial customers in 2013 and 120 paid ones, a list of their clients, etc. This is clearly "deep coverage".
The Business Standard article discusses the seed funding from 5ideas Startup Superful, 500 Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja, the company's online store, its marketing features like coupons, gift certificates, and Facebook selling, its public beta in January 2013, its 100 paying customers and 500 trial customers, its product categories (clothing, designer wear, electronics, etc.), its co-founders, and its customers. This is also "deep coverage".
The closing admin's comment "the consensus might still be to delete an article because the subject is not sufficiently notable or significant" is a bad guideline to follow. This would ensure that only topics that the Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The "average Wikipedian" find "significant" would be kept.
Overturn. A mild WP:Supervote. The last !voter Cunard, introduced new sources. These sources should not be reviewed by the closer, but by other participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that the closing statement sounds like a supervote. The closer should be summarizing the arguments, not analyzing the sources. I also agree that in the case of new sources being presented late in the debate, it's not unreasonable to extend the debate to give people time to look at them (even if it means breaking the two relists max rule). But, in this case, I think we ended up at the right result (see my analysis below), even if the process was sub-optimal. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - where the last comment introduces new sources that are independent and not trivial, there's no way to close as delete on the grounds of WP:N without supervoting, as it were. Make an argument, or move along. Okay, somethin's kindy fucky in the discussion, so I missed a bit. It's clear that the keep position makes decent arguments considering the souces (mostly, Cunard), while the delete position merely asserts there aren't, and ignores the actual sources presented (I suppose hoping no one will bother to check the sources is the only hope for the delete position). WilyD 06:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three sources in the last comment were new. All three were listed in Andrewjohn39 (tc)'s wall of links farther up in the discussion, and commented on by SwisterTwister(tc), Andrewjohn39, and Cunard. I have no objection to an overturn if I really did misread the consensus, but on procedural grounds, those references were not new. —Darkwind (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I missed that. The discussion is so jarring, as it's difficult to believe editors acting in good faith could have looked at the sources and argued for deletion on the grounds of notability anyhow. WilyD 08:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a more concise summary of the deletion review nomination please? Stifle (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence summary: The AfD participants were divided over whether the sourcing was detailed enough to establish notability, so the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus", not "delete".
Longer summary: The argument that the funding coverage is WP:ROUTINE, a guideline about the notability of events, is very weak. The relevant guideline is not WP:ROUTINE; it is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which requires "deep coverage". I explain in the nomination statement how the sources I listed at the AfD are "deep coverage". Cunard (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please consider making the "longer summary" your nomination in future DRVs per WP:TLDR. Overturn to no consensus as the closing admin failed to give sufficient consideration to Cunard's submission to the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I include the discussion with the closing admin and the list of sources in boxes in my nomination so they are easily accessible in one place for DRV participants. I also included a discussion of the sources so DRV participants are can understand why I think the sources amount to "deep coverage". This information comprises more than half the deletion nomination, so without it the nomination is not unduly long, I think.
Omitting the analysis of the sources would be problematic because DRV participants may wonder why I think the sources are sufficient.
I am happy to summarize my nomination statement whenever DRV participants want a more concise summary. Cunard (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: It's no consensus at worst for the article. But a third relist would not hurt discussion of the new sources. Esquivaliencet 13:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stay deleted Only 2 keep votes, and User:Andrewjohn39 seems to have a conflict of interest on company articles, see WP:COIN#Amalto and others. Lots of delete votes, and the coverage is routine. Should stay deleted IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to WP:ROUTINE, which is about the notability of events so is not a relevant guideline. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which discusses "deep coverage". I explained in the DRV nomination statement why the sources amount to "deep coverage". No one has explained at the AfD or at this DRV why they disagree with this assessment. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I looked in detail at the Business Standard article which is being held up as in depth coverage. It's just a warmed over press release. Take, for example:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to online store, Kartrocket also helps gain customers by integrating selling and managing orders across marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon..
This same text is repeated, almost word for word, by afaqs:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
and, on Kartrocket's own Facebook page:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
It's not word count that matters when determining if coverage is significant. It's editorial input and selectivity. Just taking somebody's press release and rehashing the wording a little does not constitute in-depth coverage. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for researching the Business Standard article and finding out that it is sourced from a press release. I have stricken it out from my DRV nomination. But it is not the only article about the subject. The Firstpost article, The Times Group article, and the VCCircle article provide significant coverage as well.
Here is why The Times Group article is "deep coverage". The article notes that KartRocket is an e-commerce enablement platform, and it raised a Series A round of funding of $2 million in a round led by Nirvana Venture Advisors, 500Startups, and Beenos. It was founded in 2012 by CEO Saahil Goe, Gautam Kapoor, and Vihesh Khurana. It received angel funding in 2013 from 5ideas Startup, 500Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja. Businesses can use KartRocket's tools to "launch their web and mobile ready stores with web and mobile site designs, built-in shipping, payment and multi-channel sales integration".
To endorse deletion, all the sources must be discounted. That was not done in the AfD, and it has not been done here.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on what deep coverage means. The quote from the VCCircle article, launch their web and mobile ready stores with web and mobile site designs, built-in shipping, payment and multi-channel sales integration is direclty from Kartrocket's own website. All the other information you cited from the article (funding sources, date of founding, names of founders) is just rehashed press release material as well. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these are either lapses in Business Standard's and The Times Group's journalistic practices, or they have different journalistic standards. In any case, I think the Firstpost article (provided in the AfD) and the MediaNama article I provided below (link) go far beyond "funding sources, date of founding, names of founders" and "rehashed press release material". What do you think about those two sources? Cunard (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article notes that KartRocket is an e-commerce platform run by Delhi-based startup BigFoot Retail Solution, and it is funded by 5ideas startup Superfuel, 500 Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja. Two of its competitors are Martjack and Buildabazaar. It has a shipping product called Shiprocket that in around December 2013 became available to all companies (rather than only companies that used its platform). For domestic shipments, Shiprocket is integrated with FedEx, Bluedart, Aramex, Delhivery, and Firstflight. For international shipments, it is integrated with FedEx and DHL. Several more paragraphs discuss Shiprocket.
Please stop carpet bombing this discussion with more "sources" that are just rehashed press releases. For example, from source #4, above:
The offerings include a number of storefront designs, domestic and international payment options, a shipping platform (ShipRocket) integrated with domestic and international logistic carriers, as well as a single shipping dashboard that helps SMEs manage their shipping and returns. Stores on KartRocket are already mobile ready, and the company also helps SMBs sell more (and gain new customers) by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon at the click of a button.
With Kartrocket, Indian SMEs can launch their online sales with the best storefront designs, comprehensive domestic and international payment options covering prepaid and cash on delivery, a powerful shipping platform (ShipRocket) integrated with leading domestic and international logistic carriers as well as a single shipping dashboard that helps SMEs manage their shipping and returns simply and effectively. Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
It's not exactly the same, but it's clear that all VCCircle did was take the same press releases that everybody has and apply some minor copyediting. Please stop wasting our time with more of the same. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Firstpost and MediaNama sources are the best sources here, and I asked you to review them above. You instead reviewed a VCCircle article. Cunard (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stay deleted - everything here looks purely routine to me. I can't see anything notable about the company. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in the AfD that the sources were "purely routine", so there was no consensus on the notability of the company. This reads more like an AfD vote than a DRV vote. Cunard (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted per RoySmith's analysis of the sources. SpartazHumbug! 14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
placeholder for badgering response from cunard.
Endorse- Within administrator discretion. Inspection of the sources suggests that most are run-of-the-mill churn. ReykYO! 15:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing administrators are intended to examine the quality of the debate as well as it's content, otherwise it's just counting noses. Darkwind did exactly as he should have. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.