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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiawin Sports[edit]

[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)

WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because they own a bunch of cricket teams, that doesn't mean that the company itself is notable enough. I don't see enough independent coverage of them (i.e. other than just saying they own these teams) to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as they have a lot of coverage, including these ones that I just have found: sportskeeda, crictracker, indiatoday and Business Standard.Maxcreator (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to me. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source, as per WP:SPORTSKEEDA, Cric Tracker is a rehashed press release (and the 2 paragraphs about the company looks like something the company has written about themselves), India Today source is just stating how much they paid for a WPL team, as is the BS source (from what I can see, as it's paywalled). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. Of late, we have seen some very low quality sources used to demonstrate widespread coverage. I think that is also the case here. AA (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the sources make no mention of Indiawin, others are not reliable and the rest are churnalism based on a press release, including the Business Standard. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company holds various teams across the world. Many times, instead of referring to the brand as ‘Indiawin owned,’ they simply say ‘Mumbai Indians owned’ (the biggest franchise under the brand). This lack of distinction is the reason it didn’t receive enough coverage. Additionally, it is clearly mentioned on the Mumbai Indians website that it is owned by Indiawin Sports. So, if we remove ‘Indiawin Sports’ and need to mention that the franchise is owned by Indiawin, how can we accurately refer to ‘Mumbai Indians’ when it itself is not a standalone brand but rather a franchise within the Indiawin brand? ‎Gorav‎Sharma 08:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is about the Mumbai Indians cricket team, then it's not coverage about the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here- just because the cricket team is notable, that doesn't mean the company that owns them are. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The brand is also notable and came into the limelight after purchasing teams in SLT20 and ILT20. That's why I created the article to simplify everything. The sources I added are trusted sources in the cricket field. Still, if the article goes against Wikipedia policy, I have no problem with its deletion. However, I will still vote to keep this article.

Have a nice day ahead! ‎Gorav‎Sharma 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorav Sharma might be better to make List article, like List of cricket teams owned by Indiawin Sports. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (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. Not one of the sources mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 31 March 2024 (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.