Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FanCode

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FanCode

[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)

No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)</> — Lorenzo the great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV per the significant mainstream coverage from the sources. Most of the sources are regarded as reliable and collectively appear to meet the criteria for notability.Akevsharma (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but WP:MILL, PR spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funding rounds, funding rounds, announcements and funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have a look at the source analysis table.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akevsharma**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dream11-launches-ad-free-multi-sport-aggregator-platform-fancode-119042500907_1.html	Major national business daily	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/how-fancode-is-building-a-onestop-destination-for-sports-lovers/76425/1	Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dream11-launches-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/articleshow/69045506.cms	The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation	Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG	✔ Yes
https://m.economictimes.com/news/sports/dream11-launches-multi-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/amp_articleshow/69042709.cms	Major business focused national daily	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is met and this goes well beyond the routine coverage based on the source analysis done by Akevsharma. It is indeed difficult to accept that a company with 50 million customers falls under WP:MILL. How is it even possible that these sources published by the leading national medias falls under PR spam? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - your thoughts about this article and FanCode's involvement in that fake tournament. Forgive my suspicions – but claims of 50 million customers when the published number is 20 million customers and a $50 million investment makes me wonder, as does the fact that the nom +2 socks were recently discovered. I don't think WP should be used to promote startups or the shady activity surrounding it, so KUDOS to Girth Summit for his diligence in catching it. Atsme 💬 📧 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a source to assist in establishing notability? There's no in-depth details about the company in the article so fails CORPDEPTH. Not sure what you mean by the company's "involvement" in the fake tourney - they were tricked/scammed. Happens to a lot of companies. You also mention that you don't think WP should be used to "promote" companies - absolutely, WP is not a platform for promotion of any company or topic. Again though, I'm not seeing any reason to side-swipe the topic company over this. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a reliable source (WP:TOI) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey ChristinaNY, whay are you looking at WP:INDEPENDENT when NCORP is the applicable guideline? Check out WP:ORGIND which also include a definition for "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with PRAXIDICAE, and will add that I'm surprised this article wasn't a G11. WP is being inundated with these types of submissions. Look at the article and the sources - the bulk of cited sources are nothing more than marketing promotion under a thin veil. For example, read the Forbes India (updated May 30, 2022) source's headline: How FanCode is building a one-stop destination for sports lovers - the source writes about this start-up company (2019) and new software - And that’s exactly what the FanCode founders—Yannick Colaco and Prasana Krishnan—have set out to do: Build a digital destination for sports fans. It's unproven hype & marketing at this point in time, WP:CRYSTAL. It's a step beyond vaporware, so let it incubate and when it becomes notable and widespread beyond marketing hype, we can consider inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Atsme for this better picture regarding Forbes. The first thing I noticed was this source from Forbes. I didnt had a second thought because Forbes (written by its staff) is considered a reliable source in enwiki. Now I understood how manipulating these sometimes can be. WP:CORPDEPTH is very tricky and confusing in may aspcets. HighKing, I have couple of question for you. I had read somewhere that notability can be established by combining the sources to get SIGCOV. Is'nt that applicable here? The second one is regarding WP:GNG. If a topic meets GNG, does it need to meet SNG too? Take this as an example itself. I think notability might be bordeline looking upon GNG. Regarding CORPDEPTH, Im having some second thoughts after seeing Atsme's opinion. Let me go through some past lengthy AFD after which I will consider changing my opinion. Meanwhile, I hope Highking can give me a clear picture for me. Akevsharma (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akevsharma, you asked two questions - first one, if notability can be established by combining sources. As per WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below .... Second one, is it an either/or situation for GNG *or* SNG. Some editors (often after it has been shown that a topic fails an SNG :-) argue that because WP:N says a topic is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, this allows for an interpretation whereby a topic may fail an appropriate SNG but still be notable because it "passes GNG". When it comes to NCORP though, NCORP doesn't actually add or remove anything from GNG but provides clarification and examples and urges editors to apply a strict interpretation on sourcing. I would wager that when you say "borderline looking upon GNG", you are in effect attempting to apply a wooly interpretation of "Independent of the subject" and in effect dilute or even exclude the ORGIND "Independent Content" clarification .. as a guess. In general, consensus is that NCORP (and GNG) can be ignored as per WP:IAR in exceptional circumstances - I don't think this is one of those. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Two of the accounts that have !voted keep are in fact socks of the nominator. I have struck through their comments. Don't ask me why they are socking to oppose their own nomination. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. The source assessment table prepared by User:Akevsharma is erroneous; the Forbes India article is not independent because it relies pretty much exclusively on the company's founders for information. The Times of India article is the same; it's essentially a press release. FalconK (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sports related company that is often in the news and seems to have decent coverage in news sources including Hindi publications which nobody has mentioned here. Appears to pass basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Some citations includes quotes from people related with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and there is enough depth of coverage. Silentone1995 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forbes has ample coverage. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states you have to pass either the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.202.140.48.42 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is, for lack of a better word garbage. It isn't an RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have got reliable and independent source which inreturn helps to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Poppified ^talk 17:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source is based on routine company announcements or otherwise not independent. It's telling that nobody has been able to answer the question posed above: Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching one of the few sources and the fact checking in it [1]. As part of its sports data and statistics offering, FanCode provides access to information and data on sports leagues, teams and players for sports fans and fantasy sports users. This includes match previews, venue details, pitch reports, weather forecasts, player performances and post-match analysis. It also has about 20 experts on-board across sports categories to provide data and predictions through a detailed analysis of players and teams, supplemented by video representation, infographics, and even blogs as official authors. Since the launch in 2019, FanCode claims to garner over 15 million users. It has launched interactive live streaming of matches with multimedia commentary, live scores, news on the sports industry across the globe, bite-sized video content like match highlight packages, chat shows with sports personalities in a new-age format, fantasy sports research and expert opinions. Here is one hindi sources of the many [2].Silentone1995 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (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.