Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlys: Difference between revisions

Atlys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases including product launches, new initiatives, and funding news as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep– if the Indian news sources pointed out by the Nom are found unreliable, then these can be just easily cleaned up, though after some spot checks for the rest of the citations which seems to come from more independent reliable sources seems to lack SIGCOV for me which if needed can just be cleaned up as well, to note, even after just a brief search in Google news shows potential notability with the company being well mentioned, one of which I see potential for SIGCOV is this in any case this is not enough, not opposed to draftify as well given it s potential for becoming a more notable subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the sources report fundraising rounds, while the rest are routine announcements and press releases. The Forbes piece cited above was written by a “contributor” and thus falls under WP:FORBESCON. I don’t see any coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Yuvaank (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep apart routine announcements, I see the Times of India, inc42, the Entrepreneur Staff and TechCrunch reporting goes beyond routine reporting (for techrunch it’s a rare thing indeed). Thus, the company is well covered. OuOneGoib (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There are several reliable, independent sources provide more or less significant coverage, e.g. Times of India (2024, Olympics-related coverage), and Business Standard (2024, it has some context on expansion). Hindustan Times has a critical overview in a light of failed promises.–This has to be edited (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I need to highlight some points here while voting. Atlys is the biggest company of its own in some countries like India and is gathering numerous media attention and coverage. The latest, thanks to Gnews, not yet added to the page are the press coverage from such media as Afaq!, a travel magazine Globetrender (here is the link [1]), many from The Economic Times+Travel World, a good one from CNBC [2], and others. Don’t want to copypaste a lot of texts here. מארק גולוב (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – so the key thing here is WP:SUBSTANTIAL and one example would be “A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization”. Just being a medium sized company (and I have heard of this company, incidentally) is not enough – there needs substance, with it SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. If you are medium sized company then sure, there’s funding and acquisitions, AGMs, dividends: these generate some press coverage, which we see here. So notable – what for? And not standard business processes. So this would need a chunky Wall Street Journal plus Financial Times piece. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Looking at the sources in the article first:

• This PR announcement of $20m Series B funding was picked up and regurgitated by lots of publishers. Seeing as those sources fail to add sufficient in-depth “independent content”, they therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing ORGIND. Here’s a list of those sources from the article: Entrepreneur, Economic Times, Inc 42, CNBC TV, ITP.NET, Business Today, and Business Standard. You’ve also got to question the REFBOMBing that’s going on here since all of those sources essentially say the same thing.
• We also had this PR announcement of $12m Series A funding which was also picked up and regurgitated by Times of India which also fails ORGIND. And of course the Seed Funding announcement was also picked up and repeated and so sources such this this mention from TechCrunch also fail ORGIND.
• Next, the CEO announced on his Linkedin page that he would give everyone a free visa if Neeraj Chopra won gold at the Paris olympics. This announcement was also shared (promoted) by the company on social media platforms. After the Silver Medal win, there was another round of PR and associated coverage. This is to be expected – I mean, that’s the point of publicity stunts – but the question we have to consider is whether it resulted in a source creating/publishing in-depth “independent content” about the company. The answer to that is a solid No. Sources from the article which simply regurgitated the “offer” and the aftermath and which still fail both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH are: Times of India, Mashable, and CNBC TV. In a similar vein, another marketing offer apeared on the CEO’s LinkedIn page, in conjunction with a full page ad in the Gurgaon Times, and the marketing campaign itself was written about. The source relies entirely on information provided by the company, again failing ORGIND (and arguable CORPDEPTH too). We also have a “three free visas to share with friends” announcement, fails for the same reasons.
• Finally, this in Travel Daily Media and this in Tavel Biz Monitor regurgitate an “announcement” of “AI features” by the company (I mean, who hasn’t at this stage?) and both rely entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from the CEO, fails ORGIND. Then this in the “By The Way” section of WaPo is four sentences, two of which are direct quotes from the CEO and another an indirect quote. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
• I also say that none of the sources mentioned above by the Keep !voters meet GNG/NCORP. This from Forbes fails WP:RS as per WP:FORBESCON. This from Globe Trender is based entirely on the company’s PR announcement of the same day, fails ORGIND. And this PR announcement, picked up by CNBC TV nearly a week later and also picked up by lots of other publications also fails ORGIND, not a shred of “original content” and any of those sources.

“Coverage” is not the same thing as meeting the criteria for establishing notability – rather its a consequence of a functioning marketing department and a news-hungry financially strapped media environment. Those sources are useless for the purposes of establishing notability as per our criteria and I’m unable to identify any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]