Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecom Express (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Ecom Express}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ecom Express}})

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Attaching some sources [https://www.bii.co.uk/en/story/ecom-express/],[https://www.forbesindia.com/article/hidden-gems/ecom-express-a-trusted-delivery-partner/41079/1],[https://www.businessoutreach.in/ecom-express/]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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.

:None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content". [https://www.bii.co.uk/en/story/ecom-express/ This from BII]] is written and published by one of their investors. [https://www.forbesindia.com/article/hidden-gems/ecom-express-a-trusted-delivery-partner/41079/1 This in Forbes] is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders. Finally [https://www.businessoutreach.in/ecom-express/ this in Business Outreach] is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.