- Nestaway (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The first attempt to create the page was made too soon when the company was a startup itself. However, it has now completed two years, acquired several smaller startups, expanded to 7 cities in the country and received different rounds of funding. The recent round of funding was by Tiger Global. The company has been written about by independent authors in leading publications - The Economic Times, TechCrunch, Fortune (magazine), Businessworld. There has also been a significant increase in the user base since then and a chance to allow recreation for the same.
References
- Ref 1 above was already in the article at the prior afd.
- Ref 2 is a notice of funding, which doesn't count towards notability .
- Ref 3 is a general article on startups that just mentions the firm in a few words among many others.
- Ref 4 was already in the article
- Ref 5 is a short press release about a minor award
- Ref 6 is a pure advertorial
Ref 7 is a self-serving interview with the firm's CEO.
- So there still is nothing useful. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It would be appealing to the purpose #3 of DRV, which means the question of whether the sourcing would have changed the outcome of the AfD if known is a valid one. It wouldn't have, therefore I see no reason to allow recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV#3 needs "significant new information...since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" The focus is on the requirements to create the page. Information that was available in the edit history was available at the XfD, but there is no benefit to restoring the edit history for DRV#3. This particular deletion included deletion on content issues, so comparing that deletion with the notability-only consideration here I think is an apples and oranges comparison. I think you might also be opening up the issues of the weight to be given to individual editor's opinions, and getting the closing admin involved. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't agree that notices of funding don't contribute to GNG. The sources show WP:GNG, but in terms of WP:SUSTAINED, two years is little for a startup. While there are no set numbers, I think that seven years might be a better length of time. Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- here's why they don't: Every actual organization becomes one only after it gets funded. Unless the funding is for some reason desired to be concealed, at that point there is always a notice in the appropriate business press, normally giving the name of the funders, who at this point will be better known than the new business. As it progresses through the early stages of formation and capitalization, there will be similar rounds of funding, every one of which will be announced. These notices are an intrinsic part of the process. They do not appear only if there is somethingspecial about the company, or about the funding, or about th efunders. They appear always. They therefore do not show notability , only mere existence. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We (meaning whoever was here ten years ago) quickly realized that we couldn't use the opinions of Wikipedia editors as a benchmark. I can't tell your statement from the opinion of an individual editor, and what concerns me the most is the rejection of the components of GNG notability. I think that WP:SUSTAINED provides a better explanation of why we as an encyclopedia aren't interested in early stage startups. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
