CricTracker: Refs are routine business news.  Brochure advertising article.  scope_creep Talk 08:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia has used more than 500 links from CricTracker as reliable references for information on dozens of articles.  Carlmumba ( talk ) 08:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's absolutely possible that the site is a reliable source, but that alone doesn't make it notable.  Shells-shells ( talk ) 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable.  Note that previous revisions of the article had more references which also did not seem to contribute to notability.  I haven't found any significant media coverage of the site yet.  Shells-shells ( talk ) 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it is tough to find media sources that discuss other media sources in depth, but it seems to me that this one isn't even close to the notable/non-notable line.  It's just a fact that their stories are discussed in other respected publications such as Wisden and national newspapers.  This isn't any reflection on their suitability as a RS for articles on en.wiki, which is a different issue.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether their stories are discussed in other venues is neither here nor there.  What is important and based on consensus is notability policy.  For this it is a WP:NCORP and even the terrible WP:HEYMANN attempt doesn't come close to meeting it.  scope_creep Talk 11:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it isn't "here nor there" when we are talking about media organisations which are not easily covered by NCORP.  JMWt ( talk ) 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All media organisations are covered by NCORP.  If your confused about that you shouldn't be taking in Afd.  scope_creep Talk 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your advice.  Maybe stick to the topic in future.  If you need any assistance in understanding why media orgs are difficult to judge using the normal notability criteria, you might like to read the essay WP:NMEDIA rather than making derogatory remarks about others JMWt ( talk ) 12:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Up until two days ago that article didn't have any references to speak of, when it was named as a paid for article, created by a UPE group that was named up at coin.  Curious how then, nobobody mentioned any of that.  Now it is suddently important.   Now all of sudden its a media company.  I see no WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:SIRS per WP:THREE .   It it has a whole bunch routine business news, like any other startup.  scope_creep Talk 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether a source is used by other sources doesn't, to my knowledge, have any impact on its notability.  An organization's work could be cited a hundred times, but unless some of those parties citing its work actually discuss the organization itself, I don't really see how anything could be written about it based on reliable, independent sources.  If you can't write about it based on reliable, independent sources then it's not notable.  Shells-shells ( talk ) 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Per WP:THREE its normal practice to show three references that prove the company is notable.  If you have three references, post them.  scope_creep Talk 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm unable to find anything about this site.  It's been cited a few times in books, but there's nothing on it.  The articles cited in the current version read like press releases.  SWinxy ( talk ) 20:19, 19 August 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.

Discussion outcome: delete