Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evage (2nd 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. There was some erosion in the keep position over time as the reliability of the TechCrunch source was contested effectively. There was concern as to the independence of the other sources. Overall, there was a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evage

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)

Nominated for deletion, soft deleted for lack of participation, refunded. And yet this Indian electric vehicle company is not notable, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP sourcing is in the main press releases about battery supply and sales wins, routine funding - WP:SERIESA. Beyond the patchy sourcing here, WP:BEFORE reveals no reason for notability out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Transportation, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails
WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: This company looks important in the area, and if Amazon starts buying them... I believe the article starts out ok, has had some serious editors recently, the socking looks under control, and the article could easily explode. Sammy D III (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets
WP:ORG with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are numerous additional mentions at google news many of which appear independent which could add further notability to the page, so the page could be improved, but doesn't warrant being deleted. Per subsequent discussion, references to not appear to have enough independent content to qualify. Locu (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The TechCrunch article appears independent and provides significant coverage of the subject. I think the bulk of the article qualifies so I won't paste the whole thing here. The author of that article covers transportation/ev/battery articles for TC and appears independent of the subject. A second (weaker) source would be thebetterindia.com which has a fair amount of information and quotes from the company, it looks independent. While one, or maybe both, of these articles might have received some facts or inspiration from a press release, they do have their own independent analysis and the bulk of the article is not content from a press release or the company. Most of the other sources are redundant press releases and could be cleaned out to improve the article. Locu (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
HighKing Your experience and comments have highlighted some things I missed, thank you for pointing them out. The TechCrunch article may have an independent author, but the independence of the content is indeed questionable - especially given the date correlation that you pointed out. The independent writer did contribute a bit to the article, but not a lot. Further, the google news I pointed out earlier also upon deeper inspection mostly seems to be connected to the same press release. I'll del my earlier recommendation. Locu (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep: Meets~~
~~WP:RS. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply
]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 5 April 2023 (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.