Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta (company)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta (company)

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

no evidence for notability besides the usual newspapers reprinting the usual press releases. There is no reason why there could be expected to be any better sources, as nothing they do seems suitable for encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another classic example of a COI/SEO expert thinking that we will allow Wikipedia to become an alternative to Yellow Pages or LinkedIn. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--Typical PR and promotion.@Kvng:--What made you accept the AFC submission and later oppose the redirect by SwisterTwister?This's a school-book example of promotion and what not to accept at AFC!Winged Blades^Godric 10:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know what you guys are looking at but I see coverage in 5 different reliable sources, 3 with bylines. Perhaps more balance would be welcome but the text does not have any WP:PEACOCK issues. Can someone supporting deletion please speak to this actual article as opposed to a class of articles you wish did not exist. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:--We are not opposed to any class odf articles!We are just strictly against expenditure of volunteer time and interests for business-promotion.And 62.29% acceptance rate is just mind-blowing!Please double-check before proceeding with the green button.Winged Blades^Godric 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please talk about Zeta (company) here. Kindly visit my talk page for other issues.

Establishing notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is unclear from what DGG, Kudpung and you see as the problem as none of you have identified any specific WP:PROMOTIONAL language or discussed the citations with any specificity. ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DGG "no evidence for notability" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bhavin Turakhia is definitely covered almost by every media and Globally known Indian entrepreneur, as per Wikipedia policy, notable person and their company has every right to be here. If we go with deleting every company like this, 99% American or European company with less than 10% notability ground present here on Wikipedia will be deleted. Definitely Wikipedia is not a geography biased Encyclopedia. This one should be there on Notability and definite ground of standards adhere to Wikipedia. i have checked, verified and read huge amount of coverage on media. Wiki articles are there such as based on Founder background alone. All news coverage reads like Press release. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana_(software) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yammer and so many others. They all have grounds to sustain that standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the purpose of full disclosure, I came across this article while defending its AfC acceptance to Godric, I see why someone might argue GNG. I had not intended to comment on it, but on deeper examination of the sources, I felt the need to, After review the sourcing is the standard coverage you would find in business publications that is not an in-depth analysis of the company or coverage of its impact in the general purpose press. The articles cited are effectively press releases. I do not see the type of coverage envisioned by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORG, and thus it is not sufficient to meet the GNG. Additionally, as written now, it is little more than a directory listing, and Wikipedia is not a directory. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: DGG has also assessed current coverage as press releases. I'm curious how this determination is made. These are not press release sites and not narrow trade publications. Three of the citations have bylines and that's what I normally use to distinguish actual coverage from press-release parroting.

Specifically which part of WP:NOTDIR do you think applies here? ~Kvng (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business journalism frequently reprints talking points without much editorial oversight. A giveaway on this is the extensive use of quotes from founders or executives combined with short basic facts about the company. What you want is significant depth of coverage beyond: this is company X. Executive Y says this about it. It does Z. It costs P. The coverage I see doesn't go much beyond that. That type of coverage gives rise to articles that fail NOTDIR because they are little beyond a resource for conducting business. The article as it stands is an infobox that lists basic facts you would find in a community magazine or business journal, along with a listing of all its products, and a link to its website. Thats something I expect to see in a hotel room tourist brochure of companies in the area, not an encyclopedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how every business news is covered. Time magazine to world'd biggest news agencies do that. it means every business article must be deleted. this arguments how its covered is highly questionable where the business and founder are well known globally. It might work for less prominent ones or new entrepreneurs looking for Press coverage. But the case is different here. Light2021 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you have failed to give an actionable criteria other than to consider all business journalists working from press releases to be unreliable. You have also not indicated which part of WP:NOTDIR we are running afoul of. Please indicate which numbered item you're concerned about. ~Kvng (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how all business news is covered. You get in-depth coverage in Time with high editorial oversight. To simply say "well that's how business news works" makes my point for me: a significant portion of the business press does not meet our RS standards. I've already indicated what part of NOTDIR it runs afoul of: it is a simply listing of products and directory information. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is not a listing of listing of products and directory information, it is a description of what the company does and how it got there. I'm going to assume that since you can't point to a specific item there, there is no specific part of WP:IINFO that is violated here. I'm also going to assume that your mind is made up on this and discussing it further will not be productive. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the specific point above: it violates point 4 of WP:NOTDIR by being essentially a listing of products and dates with an infobox. You don't have to agree with that, but I have pointed to the specific point and explained how the article violates. This is in addition to not meeting the first half of WP:N by failing to meet the GNG when considered in light of the requirements of WP:ORG. In the current form and with the current sources, yes, my mind is made up: I do not believe there exists the depth of coverage necessary to either meet the GNG or to bring it into compliance with NOTDIR. If the sourcing does exist to do so, and the article is changed to be an encyclopedia article and not a stub with basic product details, I would reconsider my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any ground for discussion where you can prove that founders are some unknown entrepreneurs? they are at the level of one the biggest Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are. How many news you can say they are some PR stunt? every news paper wrote about them globally cant be just like that?Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every news organization on the planet writes like this. You would not find coverage like that in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Financial Times. As for the status of the founders: notability is not inherited. This actually helps explain why there are more fluff pieces out there: it is easier for him to place them and to hire marketing people to do that. We require substantial coverage in reliable sources, which has yet to be demonstrated. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh! yes, you mean to say All the Americans are News and Indians News paper circulated to millions of people write only promotional content influenced by corporate marketing team. Such as Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express all these news papers wants to cover their story because some PR paid them. if satisfies your knowledge go through some American Forbes or indepth coverage :

Sorry if I missed your #4 response before. Doesn't seem to be a very applicable policy to AfD in general also doesn't seem to apply to the contents of this article specifically. I don't expect to be able to convince you otherwise. ~Kvng (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, this AfD has become too long. As to its applicability: WP:GNG is only one half of WP:N. The other half of the requirement is that the article must not fail WP:NOT. This article doesn't meet GNG, but even if it did, since we cannot produce more than a directory listing about it from current sourcing, it would not be considered notable under the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been accused of having systemic bias against South Asia on WP before. In fact, if anything you can look at several of the discussions I have been involved in on Wikipedia and I think you will find that if anything, I have a bias towards being more cautious and towards inclusion for potentially notable articles from that region of the world. All that being said: the sources you provide either don't mention the subject at all, or are run of the mill and do read like a press release (The IT piece). I don't think we're going to agree on this, but I did want to respond since I had been accused of bias. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TonyBallioni if I offended you by above remarks for being biased. It is fare to present our points. I have presented the articles for Startups by Globally Notable personalities. Else you can check I would be happy to nominate Indian or any other origin Startups If they are merely a PR stunts. Once again Sorry. Light2021 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Business Line article actually states: In India, Zeta will employ a direct marketing and sales approach to promote its digital meal vouchers and well, it appears they've done just that using Wikipedia. Furthermore, Business Line states that Zeta was unveiled by Directi and "is now a digital meal voucher brand", so which is it, a company or a brand? Financial Express claims Zeta is a Fintech startup, so there are conflicting stories. The promos in the cited sources include basic press release announcements in the Business or Finance section, (PTI feed and Express news), so it's routine business and not about anything notable that garnered the attention of independent news articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC) ^{Sorry, my edit summary used auto-fill when I hit "d" for delete, so the summary is whacked.14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

What is the conflict of story? Directi and founders are not some newbie in business looking for publicity in media, they are covered by major media globally because they are highly notable and recognized. Its not Run on mill startup business gets coverage on Techcrunch or media like Mashable and made place in wikipedia. Is there any ground for discussion where you can prove that founders are some unknown entrepreneurs? they are at the level of one the biggest Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are. How many news you can say they are some PR stunt? every news paper wrote about them globally cant be just like that? Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Your logic here runs afoul of WP:AGF. Do you have any evidence that this article was written in bad faith by someone at the company? ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage is routine: product and partnership news. No transformative analysis or indications of significance. Just a private company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DGG, Winged Blades of Godric, and Kudpung hit the nail on the head. TonyBallioni's analysis is also spot on. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 4 July 2017 (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.