Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groww (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 12:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources covering the company. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - Most of these sources were evaluated in the previous deletion discussion. However, I evaluated them a second time to either confirm that assessment or not.

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.

2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.

3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.

5. LiveMint - Same as 2.

6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.

7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT

8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:ROUTINE. We need sources passing WP:ORGCRIT. Please review that guideline and let me know what sources meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After the source assessment and inquiries about additional sources that may meet WP:ORGCRIT, there is only one I see that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 I am not sure how you are passing some information as routine coverage. In some earlier sources, there was extensive profile coverage of Groww. I am starting to think now that few Wikipedia reviewers has some inherent bias and that is why there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is also why Wikipedia has been involved in lawsuits:-> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece

The classification of some credible information as non-reliable is not good. Even then I will provide another source from Business Standard :-> https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/financial-services-startup-groww-moves-domicile-to-india-from-the-us-124051000028_1.html --Curvasingh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS certainly does not support your keep !vote contention. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing source assessment by CNMall41 and self evaluation of the sources, it is clear that the page fails WP:NCORP and fails all criteria for an organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Editors wanting to Keep this article need to respond to User:CNMall41's source analysis which dismisses most of the sources you thought were valid and reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another ORG article refbombed to pretend to be notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational as the issues raised in the first and second AFDs remain unresolved. Almost all the sources presented in the previous AFDs are still being presented in this current discussion. Those sources are unreliable. Mekomo (talk) 11:05, 12 November 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.