Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprinklr deal controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Sprinklr. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinklr deal controversy

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sprinklr deal controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This information is already in the Sprinklr history, and as a narrowly reported local regional Indian political dispute, doesn't warrant its own article. Seems to be a POV fork that violates WP:NPOVFACT. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criterion for including something in Wikipedia is its coverage in WP:RS. The entry lists 19 WP:RS, which is enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. nominator seems to be motivated by partisan support for Sprinklr and its founder [Ragy Thomas]] . -- 117.230.19.249 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.82.208 (talk) [reply]
  • Comment to the admins and other users. I think the User:Timtempleton has a close connection with the sprinklr company and its founder Ragy Thomas. He Just created a Wikipedia page for Ragy Thomas and uploaded an [1] image of him. It shows that he is close to Ragy Thomas and maybe get paid for the page creation. Besides that, the user is monitoring the Wikipedia page of Sprinklr company and its subsidiary. He removes anything negative about the company like here,here and here. Akv007 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - I'm the one who wrote the current description of the data sharing incident that sits in Sprinklr's history section. [[2]] I'm going to have to call WP:NOTHERE on the IP editors and brand new accounts. After this is closed, we can discuss the new accounts and the POV pushing at the Sprinklr article. If it persists against consensus I will request semi-protection. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPA editor Akv007 is also disruptively editing the Ragy Thomas article, making similar accusations. I'm waiting until this is deleted before taking this to ANI and SPI. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at this enough to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but the sources show that the description of this given given by the nominator as a "narrowly reported local Indian political dispute" is very wide of the mark. It has been reported in the national press of a country with a population of over a billion, several times that of the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: Thanks for commenting. I struck the "narrowly reported" part of my nomination to not mislead. My phrasing was imprecise - I mean all the sources basically say the same thing - the deal was challenged by the opposition, and the government disputed the charges. The subject is narrowly covered, not that the reach of the reporting papers is narrow. I can't find anything saying that what was accused actually happened, so my concern is more that this is a politically motivated POV content fork, and fails WP:UNDUE. This info is already in the Sprinklr article. If, however, there was coverage substantiating the charges and providing evidence that indeed there was a violation of patient privacy, this becomes a bigger deal and I'd probably lean weak keep, but probably more to recommending adding more to the Sprinklr article and turning this into a redirect. I hope you get a chance to review the media coverage and the editing history of the creator and defenders. I see from your editing history that you focus more on India articles than I do, so I value your perspective on the sourcing and political background. Cheers! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more the word "local" that puzzled me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha - it's a local political dispute for the state of Kerala, population 34 million, rather than a national issue. I'll change it to say regional instead. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment for closer Identical keep votes were posted by two different IP addresses, and one was subsequently deleted. [[3]] [[4]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both IP's are mine, added multiple keep votes by mistake Akv007 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable; had a great deal of media attention.Kumblu (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC) — Kumblu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment -- Is this political spat really notable enough to warrant an article? On the local/regional issue, the political happenings in Indian states ought to have similar status to those in US States. Would we give similar prominence if this were in Colorado? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We probably would actually, and even more so if it were in California or Texas, which have similar populations to Kerala, but that doesn't mean that we should. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to violate WP:NOT#NEWS, in that all of the sources are primary news reports, but that policy seems to be routinely ignored when it comes to issues deemed important by news sources in Western Anglophone countries. I see no reason why this can't be covered better in context at Sprinklr, as that article is nowhere near large enough to be split on the grounds of size. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has massive notability: via lots of news coverage and legal debate Mywikiupdates (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC) — Mywikiupdates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Sprinklr, which barely creaks above notability as it is. I note that most editors voting to keep have very little Wikipedia activity, and may be unfamiliar with the proper bases for having two short articles on related topics. BD2412 T 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm of two minds on this. Probably a flash-in-the-pan news story with not much to cover which will disappear in a short time. The deal itself without the controversy is probably non-wp:notable, and so we just have the controversy to cover. Seems a bad idea to have a permanent Wikipedia article on that. And so there are not sources with in-depth coverage as wp:GNG prefers. But it has lots of big-source medium-depth coverage. And a redirect would mean placing coverage of what is a big story in India inside of an article on an American corporation which, as BD2412 noted, barely meets wp:notability. I'd prefer and support a redirect/merge to another good place but I don't know where that would be. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wrote what is hopefully a balanced, concise description of the incident in the Sprinklr history. That seems to meet the current needs of acknowledging the criticism without giving it undue weight, and we can always redirect this there if it's not a clear delete consensus. I also noticed there's an article about a pending Indian privacy law Personal Data Protection Bill 2019. If this incident ever rose to more than a political party leveling as of now unsubstantiated charges, and the company was actually charged with something under the proposed law, then that would be a place to add this info as well, and change the redirect. And thank you to the other experienced editors who noticed the new and/or relatively narrowly focused accounts supporting this article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Abnormal amount of IP and SPA votes. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there does seem to be a lot of coverage. But isn't the management of COVID Data a relatively recent thing? (Rhetorical: it is.) This is more or less a news article about something that has unfolded over the past few months.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sprinklr_deal_controversy&oldid=956718206"