From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Despite a numeric majority, keep !votes fail to establish a case for the article meeting WP:NCORP, and are based on either anecdotal claims of importance, a misapplication of WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning to suggest notability rather than reliability, or else rely on sources that, upon scrutiny, do not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Various comments on either side of the discussion attesting to its prominence in internet coverage suggest that the this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, with a possibility that notability-establishing coverage will be written in the future if it continues to operate at its current level. Some side discussion in the AfD also suggested that its parent company, Nazara Technologies, may already be notable. If such an article is created, it would likely be appropriate and WP:DUE to include coverage of Sportskeeda there and turn this title into a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Sportskeeda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sportskeeda (  | 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 GNG and NCORP as none of the sources meets the requirements of "subject needs to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talks about the the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned.
1. livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent
2. exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable.
3. gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company.
4. the print - a press release article
5. timesofindia - advertising content of the company
6. the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me.
Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per the nominator Cassiopeia and HighKing. Also, the IP: 27.4.76.33, IP: 180.151.104.66, and User: Ppcexpertise95( contribs)have made few or no other edits outside this topic. They voted to keep the article but failed to establish any notable significant coverages. So the article should be deleted because none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Kashem overflow ( talk) 07:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep renowned sports media.-- Tommy Lee J. ( talk) 22:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief Keep "argument", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @ Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by Hindustan Times, LiveMint, The Economic Times and the Business Standard, the latter claiming it is the "largest Indian all-sports website". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites. Tommy Lee J. ( talk) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No, our guidelines require a lot more than being "cited" or "coverage", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth "Independend Content" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources. HighKing ++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Many keep arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by WP:PW/RS, but that is also irrelevant. Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved WP:SIGCOV. However, I think its parent company, Nazara Technologies, has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article. LM2000 ( talk) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Y'know I never considered that idea. It might work. SWinxy ( talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage.-- Monhiroe ( talk) 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: References are almost purely non-independent. Lacks SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of delete, as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep highly notable, highly trafficked site. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides. 2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 ( talk) 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH, since it is eligible for WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met.
    GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could, describe the site in the aforementioned "encyclopedic manner"—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering WP:WEBCRIT, i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the "content itself"; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow.— Alalch E. 12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a very big sports webpage. The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable. Desertarun ( talk) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands, Wikipedia is not an internet guide, so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability.— Alalch E. 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I wrote two short sentences. Read the second one again. Desertarun ( talk) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't need to, I read it just fine the first time.— Alalch E. 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words "The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable" - doesn't refer to notability? Desertarun ( talk) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See red herring.)— Alalch E. 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your Delete vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy. Desertarun ( talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is "very big", and calling the article crappy).— Alalch E. 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The article has 20 refs. How many more do you want? Another 20, 50 or 100? We're already way over GNG. Desertarun ( talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:THREE.— Alalch E. 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
That's an essay. At the time this AFD started there were 8 refs, now there are 20. Desertarun ( talk) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay, I can live with two (multiple sources are generally expected). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources).— Alalch E. 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Somebody has already put new SIGCOV sources into the article... Desertarun ( talk) 21:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example this one ( WP:ROUTINE) and this one ( WP:WEBCRIT: trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked?— Alalch E. 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete I changed my mind. People who voted for deletion brought few good points. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk) 18:50, 23 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sportskeeda&oldid=1161997868"