Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidya (company)

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lidya (company)

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources provided in the article are Press release, interviews, comments from those associated with the subject, and articles by contributors. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why this article keeps getting tagged as non-notable and accused of using poor sources. The sources in the article are Bloomberg News [1][2], Forbes[3], and CNN[4]. All 3 have significant coverage (entire article is about Lidya). The CNN link is an interview, so can't really use much material from it (primary source), but the fact that CNN is interviewing the CEO indicates notability, imo. These are all reliable sources on the WP:RSP list. Passes WP:GNG. Passes WP:3REFS. I wouldn't have taken the time to write this article from scratch if I didn't think it passed. I wrote this article because I was pruning the WP:RA companies list, and this company provided what looked like good enough sources to survive AFD. If I am misunderstanding our WP:GNG, please let me know, but as far as I know, this article meets our criteria. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10,000 loan fintech company established in 2016 yet has no coverage outside of scant trove derived from corporate releases, interviews. Hard to see it as notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed and was able to find more sources and content, so I have improved this article taking it from 4 sources to 10. The nominator and above Delete voter should revisit their votes. All sources from credible publication so there is significant coverage. There were more news sources available but most were covering the same stuff, so no need to add excessive sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do reliable sources discuss the organization? Yes! Is WP:SIGCOV satisfied? sadly No, and that is what I presume to be wrong with this article and why it keeps getting flagged for notability. The reliable sources discussing the organization are merely announcements and do not discuss the organization per se. if any editor can show me 3 reliable sources where the organization is discussed with WP:SIGCOV id change my !vote in a heartbeat. Celestina007 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources have an in depth coverage of the company. They are not just passing mentions. Also I found this new source. As you know the Wiki policy says the company have to have significant coverage, but do not specify how many articles is considered significant. While you may think there is not significant coverage, I personally think there is enough to justify a keep, so this is why we vote.Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Expertwikiguy, Thanks for the reply. i would commence source evaluation now & change my !vote accordingly if the sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Celestina007, Lidya has 100% coverage in the following sources: Bloomberg News [5][6], Forbes[7], and CNN[8]. These are all reliable sources, per WP:RSP. Am I completely misunderstanding our RS policy? To say that news outlets on our reliable sources list can create entire pieces on something, but then say that those aren't sigcov/are just "announcements"... Please forgive me for not understanding. I'm happy to hear your explanation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Bloomberg News [9] is a PR piece and Yahoo is a reprint of it. Forbes article [10] is by a contributor and not by a staff member. CNN[11] is an interview with the founder, so none of these are reliable and independent of the subject and fails WP:ORGIND.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao. Yeah, I included the Yahoo link to get around the paywall. Is there an objective way to determine if something is a "PR piece"? I don't see anything that specifically says it's a press release in that article.

Are articles by "contributors" always disqualifying as reliable source? Is that in WP policy somewhere?

I'd argue that the fact that CNN chose to interview him and publish it is enough to convey notability (even though it's a primary source, a RS still chose to cover and publish it), but I understand if somebody disagrees with that point. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Novem_Linguae, except references based on interviews fail WP:ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem_Linguae & Expertwikiguy I agree with Umakant Bhalerao analysis of the sources presented in this AFD. Furthermore, yes! If I learnt properly from Barkeep49, a PR piece isn’t considered reliable because it isn’t independent of the subject as it is a sponsored post, which is in direct contradiction to WP:GNG. You may have to see WP:RS also. I might however change my vote to a weak keep in the long run because I think a combination of all the reliable sources that aren’t written by guest editors or Pr sponsored may be enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007. Thanks for the feedback. Where does it say PR or sponsored though? Are we just inferring this, or does it say it somewhere in one of these pieces and I am not seeing it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this other article is practically a word-for-word copy. Then you realise that the article notes Ercin Eksin, co-founder of Lidya, said in a phone interview so it was a press call. Either way, based on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the company is discussed and mentioned, as per WP:SIGCOV, that threshhold is not met, nor is WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 25 December 2020 (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.