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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

StuMagz

StuMagz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Is not notable enough. Appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown. 2Joules ( talk) 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Note to Closing Admin The nominator has been blocked as a sock HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tanneruvenugopalam ( talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Is this about schools?! I'm outta here. I was never here. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes This is About schools, Colleges and Universities. Motto is to make digitized environment in EdTech Industry. They are making sure all the colleges, Schools in India are digitized in the vision of Make in India by Narendra Modi Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Digital Education portal Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you, Vijayabhaskar02, in any way whatsoever related to StuMagz? - The Gnome ( talk) 13:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I Am no were related to stuMagz. I was delegate for GES 2017 Summit in Hyderabad,India for which Ivanka Trump is the Chief Guest. As this stuMagz startup was mentioned on the Board pitches regarding development in Indian Colleges and Schools. As am a Journalist i was curious to know about this Indian Startup for which Richard Branson Tweeted them too. And then made my research and Contributions to Wikipedia community. Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet master. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Note to admins : Some comments above were not posted here by the editors signing them. They were copied & pasted here from elsewhere by Curb Safe Charmer, ostensibly in good faith. Irrespective of the copyist's intentions, such a move is highly irregular as it opens the door for chaotic controversies in AfDs, and it should actively be disallowed. (We would potentially have editors objecting to their comments appearing here, imports of irrelevant comments, conversations without the editors whose comments were copied, and so on.) There is no justification, e.g. "the editors are newbies," that would permit such an arbitrary, distorting action. Editors are also encouraged to look up WP:TALKO. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

As The Gnome has raised this at WT:AFD I think there is the best place to discuss the rights or wrongs of this. To clarify though, the 'elsewhere' that I moved the comments from was this AfD's own talk page. It was clear to me that the editors who started to justify keeping the article had intended to contribute to the deletion discussion and just did so in the wrong place. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

All these editors turned out to be sockpuppets. There is a lesson there, I think, for all of us, and it is to leave things well enough alone! If an editor wants to participate and contribute somewhere, we could show them how but we should not carry their participation forward for them. Nothing good can ever come out of doing their work for them: At best, the editors remain clueless; at worst, we're helping miscreants. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

• Comment: Here is an assessment of the sources provided in the article:

Analysis of references

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter
Indian CEO article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter, particularly as no individual journalist identified
inc42	N	N	Y	Y	N	One of the startups picked by a new incubator
The Hindu article	N	?	Y	Y	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
Forbes article	N	N	Y	N	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
The News Minute	?	Y	Y	Y	?	Three paragraphs, one a quote.
Entrepreneur article	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Substantial article - looks like a proper piece of journalism
The Hans India article	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Telangana Today	N	N	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Talangana Today #2	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Moneycontrol article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Cityairnews article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Startup Hyderabad	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Uber	N	N	Y	Y	N	Joint sponsorship of an internship
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	N	Y	Y	N	Named as sponsor of an event
Startup Hyperbad	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Won an award for branding
The Hindu #3	N	Y	Y	Y	N	One sentence mention as runner up for a startup award
News Minute	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	One paragraph - best emerging startup in StartAP awards
Total qualifying sources					2	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: On assessment (above) of the sources provided, the article looks to pass WP:ORGCRIT. The company clearly has a good marketing department or agency, but on balance it looks to me like there's enough coverage. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I do suspect undisclosed paid editing is at play here - a Google search returns an indication that someone of the same name as one of the editors that has contributed to the article is a self-employed SEO consultant. While undisclosed paid editing is not allowed, it isn't in itself a reason to delete the article. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

This is getting dirtier and dirtier. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete First, I must thank Curb Safe Charmer for the analysis. This is a great way to systemically look at sources, and I am impressed. However, I slightly disagree with the 2 sources above which are somewhat reliable, independent. (I have also looked for other sources, but I will come to that later)

  1. Entrepreneur article- Entrepreneur is generally reliable. However, they also run some short human interest stories (< 500 words) which are triggered by some social media activity. This one seems to be one of those. At 460 words, the article is not an indepth article. One third of it is about Richard Branson's quote and half are quotes by the founder. This is not really independent journalism, but more like a Buzzfeed/ScoopWhoop style "short scoop".

  2. Newsminute (article about startAP awards) - Newsminute is a fully online news media which focuses on stories in the South of India. While generally reliable in terms of being factual, I don't give it as much weightage as a newspaper like Hindu. Quite a few of the stories are ones which would never be published in a traditional newspaper. Coming back to the article, this is a coverage of the "StartAP" awards, given by an organisation dedicated to promote startup activity in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. I don't consider this award to be significant. The coverage about StuMagz is limited to 4 sentences (79 words), which is not significant coverage either.

A notable startup in India will generally attract attention in any of the mainstream newspapers like Hindustan Times or Times of India. These will not simply be announcements of funding/merger/acquisition, but will be about the company, history, target market. It would include comments by not only the founders but also prominent people in the industry. This is missing here. I am particularly surprised by the lack of coverage in most mainstream newspapers.

This looks like an emerging company to me. At this point it doesn't seem to be especially notable.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: As a member of Wikipedia am responsible to contribute verified content to the community. Forbes Asia recognized this startup founders in 30 Under 30 List for the year 2018. Entrepreneur Media is one of the respected websites and Richard Branson is a Global Entrepreneur and his validation is Great credibility for this startup. News minute is a Digital news platform read by millions of users. These made me to contribute on Wikipedia. It looks to me like there's enough coverage. Johnhexer ( talk) 12:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Looks like this AfD has been infested by socks. Striking sock !vote HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Entirely Promotional article, no indications of notability. For the most part, the references/coverage provided does not appear to be intellectually independent as required by the new version of the NCORP guidelines. There also appears to be a misunderstanding on the interpretation of "Independent". Since the long table above already rules out all but two references (which I agree with) here are my comments on the remaining two.

Analysis of references

Source	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	N	Standard Churnalism (usual format is posed photo, history of founders, explain problem and Aha moment, opportunity, funding, etc), relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND
Indian CEO article	N	Standard Churnalism, relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, no independent analysis/opinion provided, fails WP:ORGIND
inc42	N	Relies on company announcement from their incubator, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hindu article	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, the listing appears to be a cut and paste of the company description created by company sources.
Forbes article	N	The exact type of Forbes article specifically excluded at WP:ORGCRIT as most are company-sponsored or based on marketing materials
The News Minute	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, relies on quotation/interview with founder, fails WP:ORGIND
Entrepreneur article	N	Extensively based on interview with founders, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hans India article	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Telangana Today	N	Mention in passing, standard company description, no independent analysis/opinion, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND
Talangana Today #2	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Moneycontrol article	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Cityairnews article	N	Sponsored a talent competition, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV
Startup Hyderabad	N	Sponsored a talent competition, mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Uber	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Startup Hyperbad	N	Won an award for branding, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Hindu #3	N	One sentence mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
News Minute	N	Standard company description, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
Total qualifying sources	0	None of the sources meet the new requirements in WP:NCORP guidelines.

Having any old "coverage" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Also, while the "quality" of the publishing sources is a part of the criteria (reliable source, etc) the contents of the articles must be intellectually independent and deep or significant coverage (an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization). In my opinion, this company is on the startup trail, entering startup competitions and promoting themselves to build brand awareness - strip that away and we have a run-of-the-mill company just doing its thing and zero indications of notability outside of that. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a single sentence to describe anything notable. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The assessment of references here is not right. You seem to find excuses to discard every notable, reliable and independent newspaper in India. One user cited Hindustan Times and Times of India in their reason for deleting this article. While I know HT and TOI are notable sources in Indian journalism but that does not outcast all other newspapers in India. For me, this article has more than enough Reliable Independent sources to warrant a place on Wikipedia. Try replacing the question marks '?' in the assessment with WP:AGF and things will be clear. None of us actually 100 percent know if something is independent or not. This article should not be deleted. Dial911 ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you disagree with the assessment of references, please put forward your counter arguments here for specific references. Your argument that they are "notable sources" has no foundation in policy or guidelines. Your argument that the article has "reliable independent sources" has been dealt with above - if you disagree, pick a source and make an argument about that source so we can understand why a mistake may have been made. HighKing ⁺⁺ 20:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sources offered at this AfD are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: By passing statements,opinions or comments this doesn't solve the problem. As a member knew the standards what Wikipedia community follows for the legitimate articles. Above assessment are done for the article. By relisting again and again doesn't look good. Found WP:COI. You should look into this with keen interest and close the issue. Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Striking sock !vote HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Curb Safe Charmer’s analysis lists the first two sources as not independent. The user gives reason for The Indian CEO article being not independent because no journalist is mentioned there. I would like to tell the user that not all news stories have individual bylines in print media. Some articles are covered, edited and curated by a group of journalists in the agency/organization and hence they put a collective tag instead of giving credit to one individual. Also, the first source of The New Indian Express article has mentioned a journalist, even then Curb has concluded that this is a PR piece. As far as my WP:CLUE is concerned I would deem both of these sources valid for NCORP. And with that there are certainly multiple (at least 4) reliable sources to keep this article from deleted.

Another thing is the nomination rationale by a user that has been blocked for sock puppetry. The nominator said “Stumagz appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown.” I am wondering how this sock puppet knows that Stumagz is unknown outside its hometown. And since when did we start deciding on something notable based on a random speculation of its geographic reach? Just because one doesn’t know or haven’t heard about something doesn’t make it non-notable.

Another user HighKing just cancels out everything with his own reasoning which to me appears to be a naïve action on his part. I see there are some references that do not meet the new NCORP guidelines but 4 of them are perfectly okay to keep this article. If we use HighKing’s analysis on every CORP on Wikipedia, we would have almost nothing here as anyone can propose their own casual opinion and strike out the references one by one only on the basis of their gut feeling.

So yeah, keep this article. Dial911 ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Striking 2nd Keep !vote from same editor as you've already posted above. Also, you were requested to provide links to the references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. I note you haven't done that and yet you still say that (in your opinion) there are 4 references that meet the criteria. Please post them here. It would be very helpful if you pointed out why those references meet the requirements too and rebut any arguments put forward that argue to exclude those references. A closing admin won't count !votes but will weigh up arguments based on policies and guidelines. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Why would you strike my keep vote? The nomination has been relisted, The admin is anyway not gonna count the votes but the weightage and I never read a policy that says one is not permitted to vote after relisting. Coming back to the references, I think these 4 are suitable:

1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2017/nov/08/connecting-colleges-companies--careers-1695994.html
2. https://indianceo.in/startup/stumagz-connecting-students/
3. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311491
4. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/three-t-hub-startups-bag-andhras-startap-awards-visakhapatnam-81930

Dial911 ( talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Doesn't matter if it has been relisted, you only get one !vote and it is normal practice to only use a Keep to Delete marking once to indicate your !vote. The articles above were already reviewed. It would be very helpful if you could rebut the arguments put forward earlier. For example, I point out that this newindianexpress reference is pretty standard churnalism. You can tell because it uses the same format (posed pic, problem, solution, future-is-bring) and uses peacock statements such as "Under the able guidance of Charan, teams of enthusiastic young talen who are working day in and out..." and "StuMagz despite initial hurdles is growing in leaps and bounds ..., contains a big quotation from Charan with statements such as "This platform is highly beneficial to the colleges" and has absolutlely zero analysis/opinion written by the actual attributed journalist - just stuff copied from Charan or the company. In order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *content* of the reference must be intellectually independent - while the source must also be independent, they are not the same thing. The content in the references you've provided is not intellectually independent. If it is, please point out what you consider to be intellectually independent content. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dial911: Just a small reminder. A response to my points above would be very helpful in advancing your argument and would assist the closing admin in weighing the Keep and Delete !voters positions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ HighKing:, I still think this article should not be deleted because if this one's get deleted there would be a thousand more on Wikipedia like this that shall be deleted. If that is how we are going to analyse sources for CORPS it would be almost impossible to arite new articles on CORPS. But anyways I don't have anymore energy to defend this article. Dial911 ( talk) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dial911: HighKing is right to strike your second 'keep'. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line".

Re your assessment of independence, please read the second bullet point at WP:ORGIND. Where a piece has been 'written' by a staff writer it is often an indication of churnalism, rather than original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.The guideline goes on to say that if in doubt aboutthe independence of a source, exclude it. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I will keep in mind not to vote in relisting. Thanks! Dial911 ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment It is informative to look at the website of the parent company Right Process InfoTech Pvt. Ltd which says that it is an SEO, search engine marketing, content management and online reputation management company. I believe there is undisclosed paid editing and WP:NOTPROMO going on here. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you now as sure as you were a few days ago that the contested text should be Kept as an article? - The Gnome ( talk) 08:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ The Gnome: Whether the company is notable is borderline, which is why we're here. Assessment of the independence of sources is subjective. I identified the two strongest references, and felt they were - on balance - sufficient. Two experienced editors have since disagreed. I am sure the closer will evaluate the arguments made and adjudicate accordingly. The socking, COI and undisclosed paid editing is loathsome, but we are here to assess the merits of the article, not pass judgment on the behaviour of other editors, whom admins have already dealt with accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the response, Curb Safe Charmer. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete this puppet-infested text about a subject evidently lacking notability. I was not going to participate but underhanded tactics rile me. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability borderline at best based on the above discussion; also entirely promotional and so would need TNT-ing in any case. Sandstein 08:40, 14 July 2018 (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.