Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eckovation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SoWhy 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eckovation

[edit]
Eckovation (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)

One media coverage is found. else typical Startups with cause. Press coverage. but written or intended to be promotional alone. 2. there are several noble ideas, but it does not mean they are encyclopedia notable. Too early to write a wikipedia article. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamyshade (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking into account WP:SPIP, it looks like these sources generally qualify because they're from reasonably reputable newspapers/publications that pass the WP:ORGIND criteria, unlikely to be paid placement. For WP:CORPDEPTH, it helps that most of the articles go into several paragraphs of detail, instead of being simple statements. Some of the articles (such as "Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020") are primarily quotes from the staff, which is a point against them for WP:CORPDEPTH, but others include some material not directly quoted from staff (such as "Two IIT Graduates Found a Lack in Parent-Teacher Interaction. They Are Solving It with an App!" and "Exclusive: Chandigarh Angels Network backs social learning platform Eckovation"). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these sources have an appearance of being driven by launch publicity. An example from "They Are Solving It with an App!":
  • "Ritesh Singh and Akshat Goel, graduates from IIT Delhi, met the parents during the school’s annual PTM. They introduced the parents to Eckovation, a mobile app that can help them be in constant touch with the teachers at school and remain informed about all important school activities. (...) The more they looked, the more they felt that one of the main reasons behind this difference was the complete lack of communication between parents and teachers in smaller cities as compared to the schools in the bigger metros."
This presents the POV of the founders, telling their "origins story". Getting coverage is largely a PR driven exercise, CORPDEPTH requires third-party, transformative analysis, and I don't see it in the sources presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these pieces look driven by the company wanting to tell their story and seeking press, although that doesn't seem to disqualify the sources under SPIP or CORPDEPTH, since it's still independent coverage and not paid coverage. I'm reading CORPDEPTH and I don't see it requiring transformative analysis to meet the requirements, especially if there are multiple independent sources available, and I'm seeing coverage from 8+ independent publications and authors. I'd prefer there to be some deeper critical coverage available in order to build a strong and balanced article, but it still looks to me like the minimum notability threshold is met. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is simply a starting company going about its business and with the usual processes of gaining attention: Publicity press or public relations which is natural for businesses, but not for an encyclopedia. What WP:CORPDEPTH actually says is articles must not be excluded from WP:What Wikipedia is not and notability is not a guarantee. The sources:
  • "A startup company....which is engaged....to make its platform smarter....[the founders] launched Eckovation....[and has] taken initiative....The firm has completed....The aim has been...." (first one),
  • "[They] created this social network....[says co-founder]....download the app, register and start....Interested students can....add themselves and the courses....series via YouTube or Google. Courses fees start from....The start up earns a commission on...." (second one)
  • "The programme aimes to....[Co-founder] says the initiative....[Eckovation employee] told....He explained....[CEO said]....For Eckovation [he] added....and he said..." (third one)
  • "The startup will utilise the money....Eckovation connects....Eckovation was co-founded by....The platform hosts....and plans to....[They] compete....[They have] been generating interest....aims to invest...." (fourth one)
  • "[They] have come up with....[They] wanted to provide....[They chose]....[He] hails from....he said....According to him....[He] says the....says the [co-founder]....Eckovation has allowed....[They have] raised money...." (fifth one)
  • "They have developed....They attended....They introduced....[He] joined....[He] started discussing....[They] observed...."
  • "In order to....[They] came up with Eckovation....can create their own accounts....With Eckovation, you can....[They] are currently looking for....As claimed by the founders, the app...."
  • "The app is available for free....[The employee] said....[Business partner] has teamed....Through this initiative....She says....Available on eckovation.com....She added...." (this one was especially a few paragraphs with each one starting on a "employee says" or "they say")

If this is all the sources have to offer, it's not independent as by WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V without outside involvement. This is not only indiscriminate, but each one clearly labels the self-servicing by the business itself, but we're not a for-hire agency. What our notability also cite is the need to ensure all the sources are examined to see if they're otherwise unacceptable, and the analysis here shows quite the opposite of "significant". SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source from among those above that might seem to be best, the Economic times is an interview, 95% written by the founder; ditto for the second & third; the 4th is a series of notes about recent announcements from various companies; the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th are just the same sort of interviews. I do not understand how any responsible journalist can put his name on a melange somebody else's quotations this way, and the journals that publish it stand self-convicted or irresponsibility. (of course, we knew that before, but this batch is a nice confirmation. Until India has a responsible source of business journalism , we will be unable to write reliable articles about small and medium Indian companies. Perhaps we need a proper statement that these particular sources are never acceptable for purposes of RSs for notability. We could then simply delete any article which has no better sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a minor company which is one of the many educational startups by IITians. I have never heard of this earlier and I do not know of any significant impact this has (this is far from being a popular lms). There are a few articles about the company, but these are fairly routine ones based on the launch press release. If this was truly notable, there would be a lot more coverage in HT/TOI/Hindu and others.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources uncovered, in my opinion, do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per DGG's analysis. Onel5969 TT me 01:15, 12 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eckovation&oldid=1089532214"