Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Websites. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Websites|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Websites. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:WEB.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Websites

Ubuy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but it doesn't appear that the new information meets N:ORG either, so bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Internet, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sprked

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It was a short-lived game curation and crowdfunding platform launched in 2015 that is now defunct. The official website now redirects to an unrelated blog, its social media accounts are deleted or inactive, and it is listed as "Closed" on Crunchbase. The only coverage comes from two nearly identical 2015 articles (Engadget and Yahoo), which are insufficient to establish notability as they lack significant, independent, in-depth analysis. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, this subject does not merit a standalone article. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Tagged as advertisement at its creation and still in that state. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Untagged, not clearly promotional in my view. Better to settle the notability question properly by letting the debate here run its course. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic fails to meet the WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElgooG

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable website. The lead lists the definition of a term like a disambiguation page but then all headings list possible meanings. Is this meant to be a page about elgoog.im or Google mirrors? Delete for lack of notability (the added template suggests that the page is about elgoog.im). thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's definitely history for this Google mirror. I know that's an argument to avoid but for something more than 20 years ago with 2 previous AfDs, let's see if any substance holds for today. I don't agree with the weird disambiguation because it's explaining the same website. For instance, a random look into the past edits shows that: Special:Permalink/199047655. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent49

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

Newspaper isn't notable and the article lacks quality sources. Eric Schucht (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Alaska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM (website)

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

Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE shows zero coverage at news 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Mathematics, Technology, Websites, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary coverage and potentially merge into the host institution. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Lorstaking (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried searching Google Scholar but found only works by the PI of the project and dubiously reliable publications. My usual expectation is that web sites for random academic projects are unlikely to meet our standards for notability and I see no evidence to contradict that in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CGMagazine

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

Fails WP:NWEB. I'm not seeing other significant coverage apart from the news story about the site moving towns: [1]. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Technology, and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sigcov in itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, looks like a run-of-the-mill magazine and WP is not a database. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuko.co.ke

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination: First nomination was significantly distorted by a group of socks, and also got non-admin closed by a now blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Kenya. MarioGom (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article that really explains its notability. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Property24

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

Possibly fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appreciate all the review work that happens around here. Putting my vote in to rather retain the article and improve it by adding more sources and info. I think by nature of this being a major arm of one of South Africa's largest companies by revenue, and the largest property site in Southern Africa, it passes the muster of WP:NORG. Happy to contribute to the article's growth myself, as I'm sure other Wikipedians will over time. Thanks all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husskeyy (talk • contribs)
- Largest something does not give notability if you read the guidelines. At best, you could say redirect to OLX as the notable parent. IgelRM (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I do think it passes the bar of "trivial coverage", and that more independent, verifiable sources would be added to the article over time, considering the breadth of this company's reach in Southern Africa. Husskeyy (talk)
Delete It doesn't seem to be WP:PROMO which makes this odd. There is certainly not sufficient WP:SIGCOV here with the bulk of content sourced to the company's own website or unambiguously non-RS sources. My quick WP:BEFORE fails to find anything more redemptive. In any case, doesn't pass WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. Also fine with Merge. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC); edited 17:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just commenting here to say that I agree with Jlalbion (talk) when it comes to the reliability of those sources you mentioned. MyBroadband, IOL, BusinessTech, etc. are all major South African online news sources. Husskeyy (talk)

They're trade outlets; coverage of a business in this context is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, the IOL and MyBroadband articles should be reliable sources for SIGCOV purposes. But I'm mostly here to suggest that if there is a consensus on deletion, the content should be merged into Naspers#Property24 with a redirect. Jlalbion (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging with a redirect, as you've mentioned, would be my second choice suggestion, yes. Makes sense, rather than simply deleting the content. Husskeyy (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I am a bit confused as to the corporate structure here for who owns what of whom in regards to OLX, Naspers, and Prosus, but I think there are 3-4 sentences worth keeping on here somewhere. For now I guess it is fine to do as Jlalbion suggests. Moritoriko (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spinny (company)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Spinny. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for bringing this article to AfD. I believe the subject may now meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It's possible that when earlier versions or submissions were reviewed, such coverage was not yet available, but recent searches (including on Google) show more in-depth and reliable sources. I support the AfD process in this case so that the wider community can evaluate whether the subject meets the notability criteria. I appreciate that this nomination was made in good faith. Afstromen (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen could you specify which sources you mean? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes India, Economic Times, Live Mint, Moneycontrol, Entrepreneur Afstromen (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided here are not reliable; they all appear to be promotional material from the same date and on the same topics.1) Spinny raises $283 million [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]2)Spinny has fired about 300 employees[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]3)Spinny opens 1,000 acre park [20][21][22][23][24] SachinSwami (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and what about Forbes India and Entrepreneur source? Afstromen (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [25] Afstromen (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[26], [27] Afstromen (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No change between same date and same topic.4)Spinny raises $65 million[28][29][30] SachinSwami (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SachinSwami I am agree with your point but can you share your review on Forbes India, Entrepreneur and other sources i mentioned in this discussion. Also [31][32]

[33] Afstromen (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are from the same date and same topic.5)Spinny Acquires Scouto[34][35][36][37][38][39] SachinSwami (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing mainly on the sources that were published on the same date, but you are ignoring other reliable and high-quality sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company is highly suspicious for COI and it looks like Covert advertisement. Check the previous deletion history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinny B-Factor 16:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India.Afstromen (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are from the same date and on the same topic, appearing entirely promotional.*:SachinSwami (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems very interested in this page; I suspect a conflict of interest (COI). SachinSwami (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am interested in discussing the sources. and I have nothing to do with COI. Afstromen (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth discussing promotional sources? 38 sources were shown, all appearing like advertisements. I can provide many more sources from the same date and same topic. SachinSwami (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a few things, and after this I’ll leave it here.

[40] – This is a detailed piece that gives significant coverage to the company. It wasn’t published on the same date as the others, so I’m not sure why it's being grouped that way. It clearly supports notability under GNG.

[41] – This is from India Today, which is both reliable and independent.

[42] – An exclusive from Forbes India should count as independent and non-trivial coverage.

[43] – This is another solid source from Deccan Chronicle that adds to the overall picture. Afstromen (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the vote casting and conflict of interest matter, I saw substantial publicity regarding the corporation. Fulfill the conditions outlined in WP:NCORP. I found [44], [45], [46] and [47] AndySailz (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis of the provided sources is as follow: 1) WP:FORBES states that "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff with editorial oversight and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight and is generally unreliable." 2 The Financial Express article focuses heavily on Spin's success and positive aspects. Due to its promotional tone, it cannot be considered fully neutral. 3 ) India Today is considered reliable, but this article also emphasizes Spinny's positive aspects (such as customer-centric approach and use of technology) without shedding much light on the company’s challenges or shortcomings. It lacks a thorough evaluation of Spin's true situation, making the article appear one-sided. The source does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. SachinSwami (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your opinion clear, and I believe it's now fair to allow other editors the opportunity to contribute their views as well. I would also like to note that the Forbes article cited is bylined by a named journalist, which adds to its reliability under Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Additionally, the Deccan Chronicle article provides coverage about the company. Let's continue this discussion constructively and collaboratively, following Wikipedia's guidelines. Afstromen (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is welcome to evaluate sources presented by other votes. This is a discussion, not a vote count. Please do not attempt to stifle their comments. The fact is that the majority of the sources are press-driven and come from the company, either paid for through non-disclosed ads or churnalism (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that many sources are kind of press-driven. But why you aren't not pointing good article. Both Forbes India articles are reliable, staff-written pieces with bylined journalists. They offer in-depth, independent coverage of Spinny’s background and business model, meeting the criteria for notability under the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Also the articles from The Financial Express and Deccan Chronicle that are with bylined journalists name and offer coverage about the company. These publications meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards for news sources when written by named journalists. Also i found two Hindi sources [48], [49]. I am discussing this only because you are ignoring good sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Please stop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I won’t say anything further.Afstromen (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two Hindi sources do not make the subject notable since the first one focuses significantly on its founder and the second fails SIGCOV (?). ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 17:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All but one source is either unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:ORGTRIV (acquisitions, hiring/firing, capital raises, new location openings) that do not count as WP:SIGCOV. With insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH this article fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject does not meet the notability guidelines, shown by SachinSwami's analysis of the sources provided. A search gives us some routine announcements and paid news with a promotional tone (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) in addition to some that fail to meet the SIGCOV. And when deleting, it should be salted to prevent further recreation against existing consensus. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 17:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is totally unnecessary in my point of view. The company has significant coverage in forbes and entrepreneur.com.14.142.146.94 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Source	Publisher & Reliability	Coverage Type	Depth of Company Details	Editorial Independence	Strength for Wikipedia Notability	Notes
Forbes India (Rearview Mirror, 2020)	Forbes India — highly reputable business magazine	In-depth company profile, founder story, growth narrative	Very high — detailed history, challenges, strategy	Yes	✔️ Very strong	Excellent for early company history and founder insights; authored, independent feature
Forbes India (Acquisition, 2023)	Forbes India — highly reputable business magazine	Business milestone coverage, acquisition, financial scale	High — recent company growth and market impact	Yes	✔️ Very strong	Exclusive coverage of Spinny's acquisition of Truebil, demonstrating significant industry impact and growth
Economic Times Hindi (Niraj Singh story)	Economic Times Hindi — reputable regional publication	Founder interview and company journey	High — detailed founder insights and growth	Yes	✔️ Strong	Valuable regional-language coverage with deep founder and company details
ET Prime	Economic Times Prime — premium business analysis platform	Market context, business model, competition	Moderate — business analysis, less company history	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Useful for market positioning and competitive context
VCCircle	VCCircle — respected startup and VC news site	Funding updates, financial milestones, company history	Moderate — combines financial info with company background	Yes	✔️ Moderate	Good for financial verification plus some company history details
Moneycontrol	Moneycontrol — reputed financial news portal	Funding rounds, valuation, company background	Moderate	Yes	✔️ Moderate	Includes exclusive reports on funding talks and valuation milestones
Livemint (Funding & Growth Articles)	Livemint — established business news outlet	Funding, investor details, company history, growth strategy	Moderate to High	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Provides both financial info and detailed company history and growth context; includes exclusive funding round coverage
Entrepreneur India	Entrepreneur India — established entrepreneurship magazine	Authored in-depth feature on business model and success	Moderate to High	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Reliable authored profile useful for demonstrating notability

103.46.200.95 (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely rubbish assessment. Fobres India and Entrepreneur India are NOT Forbes and Entrepreneur. Quack quack! --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this point. Cannot find references meeting WP:ORGCRIT and no one has brought forth anything to the contrary. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense source assessment. These are WP:ORGTRIV or WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews; furthermore, Forbes India and Entrepreneur India are not reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grok's opinion on the issue

Keep Look, the company’s clearly been getting decent media coverage not just from Forbes and Entrepreneur, but from a bunch of other sources too. Everyone keeps getting hung up on Forbes and Entrepreneur India like they’re the only game in town.

For Forbes, the article doesn’t seem like paid content — it looks legit, editorial, and actually covers the company in a meaningful way. As for Entrepreneur India, yeah, there’s been some back-and-forth about its reliability, but no consensus doesn’t mean “not reliable.” It just means editors haven’t fully agreed. So let’s not throw it out without a solid reason. Also, it’s not like getting featured in these places is a walk in the park, it’s still a sign the company’s doing something notable. Plus, we’ve got other coverage too. Someone even put together a comparison table of sources, which helps show this isn't just fluff or PR spam.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more experienced, organic input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to Draft:Spinny - current sourcing doesn't contain enough depth of coverage for a standalone article. I agree with Dclemens1971 that this Forbes India source is decent enough, and I'd also say that a combination of this Economic Times source corroborated by Reuters is OK too - there needs to be more sources like that for an article. I suggest draftify as an alternative to deletion and to the correct title, with a restriction, if possible, that any future publication go through the articles for creation process to avoid COI concerns. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying would not work as no amount of cleanup will make this notable. Movign to draft will simply cause the SPAs and COI editors to move it right back, regardless of the AfC restriction. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the Reuters piece is WP:ORGTRIV covering, as it does, a funding round/valuation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It has received significant coverage from many well-known independent sources, including Forbes India (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/rearview-mirror-lost-alignment-and-a-leap-of-faith-how-spinny-emerged-as-a-dark-horse/85135/1), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/markets/funds/indian-used-car-platform-spinny-valued-18-bln-new-funding-round-2021-12-07/), The Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/spinny-turns-unicorn-after-raising-285-million-from-adq-tiger-global-and-others/articleshow/87890974.cms?from=mdr), Business Today (https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/corporate/story/tiger-global-in-talks-to-invest-100-million-in-used-car-retailer-spinny-298696-2021-06-15), Moneycontrol (https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/exclusive-tiger-in-talks-to-back-spinny-valuation-zooms-to-800-million-7034641.html), Financial Express (https://www.financialexpress.com/business/express-mobility-online-transaction-makes-up-for-48-of-used-car-sales-for-spinny-2923245/), Livemint (https://www.livemint.com/Companies/QTrlHrh5KPspHcssiwizRL/Spinny-in-talks-to-raise-up-to-15-million.html), Entrepreneur India (https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/news-and-trends/spinning-success-in-the-used-car-business/414905), and others.

These sources provide detailed information about Spinny, its funding rounds, business model, growth trajectory, and its position as a unicorn startup valued at $1.8 billion. This coverage goes well beyond basic press releases or trivial mentions. Similar companies like CARS24 and CarDekho have had comparable coverage and were kept in their AfDs. Spinny should be treated consistently with this precedent.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user registered 3 days ago and has made a total of 7 edits, all of which are in AFD (Articles for Deletion). Having extensive Wikipedia experience and directly participating in AFD suggests significant involvement. Out of the 38 sources provided, these are the ones being referenced. SachinSwami (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find independent evidence that this company is notable in Wikipedia's norms. Numerous citations from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. [50], [51], [52], [53]. I find In-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This brigade of relatively new accounts arguing "Keep" is frankly unconvincing and suggestive of an off-wiki canvassing or UPE attempt. And the sources you cited were all already discussed and dismissed abvoe. I trust that the closing admin will see through this attempt and evaluate the consensus the actual Wikipedia community has come to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains sufficient independent in-depth content and meets NCORP criteria after excluding the quotes from execs and information provided by the company. The company is also profiled in analyst report from Frost and Sullivan here (paywalled). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Economic Times article is detailed, covering Spinny’s business strategies, market share, and competitor comparisons. It includes data, expert opinions, and industry trends, making it seem complete and reliable, but there are questions about The Times Group’s reporting. With your 19 years of experience, you’d know how much to trust it.

researchandmarkets.com provides market research reports, data, and analysis, mainly for industries, businesses, and professionals. But how notable is it on Wikipedia? Is it significant? Has it been discussed before? Its reliability is currently unclear. Also, if you could comment on salted pages and pages with suspected COI, it would help me comment in AFD discussions in the future. SachinSwami (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm aware of how some newspapers provide "marketing" articles or "puff profiles" masquerading as news - in my view, that isn't one of them which is why I've mentioned it. I'd like to think that I've participated at enough NCORP-related AfD's to tell the difference. As to the research report, the researchers are Frost and Sullivan and they are reputable. As to the other matters, recreating a "salted" article without reference to the deleting/salting admin should normally result in action taken against the recreating editor but given the delete was in 2022 and the references used to establish notability were not in existence then, I don't think this will lead anywhere especially if the article is not promotional in nature and follows the guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Spinny was not in fact profiled by Frost & Sullivan. The company was mentioned along with others in context of its used car report. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions