Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScoopWhoop

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator as per http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Wikipedia-have-a-page-about-ScoopWhoop — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ScoopWhoop

ScoopWhoop (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)

The article lacks significance coverage inreliable sources. Most of cited sources are from self-published sources, partner's website and press release; it also fails WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the Business Standard and Quartz articles. Msnicki (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki Note: All the newspaper and related articles cannot be considered to be reliable one; contents published such as press-releases...reviews is not considered to be the reliable one. Even if we consider these two sources as reliable (which is not that effective ) is not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states dept coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"Multiple" is generally interpreted as at least two good sources at AfD. The Business Standard and Quartz articles satisfy the requirement. That makes this one a keep. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki You are right but press releases and reviews is not general cited or you can say is not treated as good /reliable references even if they are from great sources. These this and thisresults from Google points QZ more of an partner than an source for reliability to the article which again questions the WP:NEWSORG and WP:IRS. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

QZ looks reliable to me. From their Welcome to Quartz page, Quartz is owned by Atlantic Media Co., the publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive. The publisher of The Atlantic is good enough for me. To my continual consternation, we often accept far, far less. Msnicki (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki Even if we consider that as the reliable one, it fails the WP:ORG since coverage in depth in multiple sources is need. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For someone who claims "near-native" command of English, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language. I cited TWO RS in my !vote and that's definitely multiple. Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki Read once, twice and thrice everything posted under this Afd. Let me quote the cause for you, the great Englishmen "your multiple" sources is actually not multiple as per Wikipedia's policy WP:IRS (give yourself sometime and read carefully WP:IRS). Note: ...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources.. And don't force me to drag your fluent English here. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to quote WP:IRS, it should be an actual quote, not something manufactured out of your imagination. That page simply does not say what you claim it does. You've made it up out of whole cloth. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how specious but I have mine. I think these sources qualify and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am done with you. Let's see what others have to say. Msnicki (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources., was not my personal views or imagination (you can verify the facts here WP:SIGCOV, Notability (media) and WP:3PARTY. Anyways lets wait and see what other say. Thanks — CutestPenguin^Hangout 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough third party reliable coverage. Here is 1 from Livemint ChunnuBhai (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is calming to be a news and media company but does not meets the Wikipedia's criteria for notability for organizations and companies nor it have significant coverage in reliable sources, except those press-releases and reviews which is again not treated as the reliable source.  D Mi^™ 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Business Standard and Quartz articles? Msnicki (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I am new here so my word might not hold that much say but scoopwhoop is a site that deserves a wikipedia page. It is widely read among the youth. Here are some more references I found-http://www.exchange4media.com/industrybriefing/this-independence-day-robin-hood-army-uber-and-scoopwhoop-launch-mission100k-to-feed-the-less-fortunate_61217.html

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Blend-of-Courage-and-Bravery-5-Param-Vir-Chakra-Stories-Every-Indian-Must-Read-nid-187008-cid-1.html http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/sunday-read/Streaming-goes-mainstream/articleshow/48839477.cms http://www.mumbrella.asia/2015/06/outbrain-announces-scoopwhoop-storypick-and-indian-express-as-new-publishing-partners-in-india/ http://www.indiantelevision.com/mam/marketing/outbrain-expands-network-to-drive-growth-for-indian-publishers-150616 61.12.32.78 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep How can you delete this article. Jimbo Wales himself thinks that there should be an article about this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessedhuman111 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

@Jimbo Wales: have not specified about the existence of the article on the Wikipedia, instead he emphasised that it is not possible legitimately to have an article about the subject. In fact he questioned about the background of the so called company. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir, Jimmy Wales typed " I do think that a small article could legitimately be written." Please check you might have read incorrectly. And even this was nine month back since then the company has become even more famous and notable. And can you please point to the parts that seem advertorial to you , I will rectify them and add neutral tone to them. P.S.-Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not a native. Blessedhuman111 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! got it. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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.