Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fynd (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus - backed by detailed source analyses - both that the sources are inadequate and that salting is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fynd

[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)

Not notable enough to pass WP:CORP. References are routine funding news, and local coverage. Some references are user-generated like [1], [2] etc. Ninjaediator (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [3] is not a user-generated reference. Zaubacorp is an Indian business research company and maintains the registration details of all Indian companies. Zauba Corp does not own or has no relationship with any of the companies mentioned on their website Besides, that reference is used to legally identify the bonafide founder of the company, which can be verified anywhere on the Internet. All non-trivial data have come from sources that were independent and secondary in nature. Example: The Financial Express, The Economic Times, Corporate Announcement from Reliance (an established company in India), A book named The Millenials having a registered ISBN number and Smart CEO. Another reference in question [4] has been removed. Other data under 'History' being independent of the subject meets the primary criteria for WP:CORP. The article in question is a start-class article highlighting the company details in an encyclopaedic language.Trinityfire (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Trinityfire (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Ninjaediator (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trinityfire: it merely establishes the fact that the company exists but does not say why it is note worthy to be included. I checked your contribution history out of curiosity and I found some random edits then creating this page which has been deleted previously via AFD. Would you explain with just 60 edit counts, what made you create this article? Ninjaediator (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - previous AFD consensus was influenced with keep votes by SPA/socks[5]. Pinging other users @DGG:, @Eastmain:, @Accesscrawl:, @K.e.coffman:, @L235:. Ninjaediator (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjaediator: Hi, I started with doing minor edits on Wikipedia and I guess that's how most people start. I learnt from other pages, especially the rules and guidelines mentioned on my talk page by a Wiki contributor named Abishe. FYI, I had no role in the AfD process mentioned above. Coming to the question of notability that falls within WP:GNG, I have used data from sources which I have mentioned in my earlier comment, there's a significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. After I submitted this article, it has been edited by other Wikipedia editors too. At the end of the day, a healthy consensus is what I expect. Thank you! Trinityfire (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect against recreation. Unambiguously fails NCORP. The articles in the Financial Express and SmartCEO are promotional interviews, where the president of the company says whatever he cares to--newspapers in all countries do this, not just in india, and the material counts for what it really is: PR. The other references are mere notices. They go to show existence, not notability . The previous AfD ended as a delete, not a keep; it was relisted after the socks had appeared; and a Draft version was also deleted twice, once at MfD and once by speedy G11. The editor who moved the draft out of process into mainspace has since been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly doing so. Evenmore important,{{U|Trinityfire, since this is your only article, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hi, I am not a connected contributor and I am not being paid for this article. However, I was an intern at this company several years ago. I have no CoI and I have not been in touch since then. I intended to write several articles including that of a famous astronaut who is not on Wiki because people search for her and want to know about her. I am aware of your action towards this article when it was tagged with a speedy G11. Even before that I had approached you on your talk page, but you might have been busy. Since then, the article is only about the company and its presence in India and none of its products or services. I condemn the act of that editor who moved my AfC article without a proper review. In some way, the AfC process got jeopardized by an idiot and I was willing to work upon the kind suggestions given by a user named Bonadea. However, it got deleted without a contest or a chance for me to improve. I don't want to promote this company or any of my future subjects. Let there be a fair consensus is all I ask.Trinityfire (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete&SALT or we will be doing this all year long. Fails NCORP. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt I agree with the other users who gave reasons why it should be salted. It's clearly not notable and there's no reason to do this again. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing a few sources that are neither PR, nor any passing mentions [6], [7] The references don't seem like a company-pitched information. In India, the company seems to come into the picture everytime big players like Amazon and Flipkart get a coverage, check [8] I am not sure if non-notable companies get noticed among other e-commerce players. Trinityfire (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional undertones which is typical when 1/2 of the article is focused on funding. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2020 (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.