Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela

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 speedy delete. Canvassing aside, notability is not remotely close to being established as the consensus indicates, and there is no point to continue any further. Alex Shih (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tech Mela

[edit]
Google Tech Mela (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 is a promotional article on a single event and is titled inaccurately. The event was supported by Google but it was not "Google Tech Mela" as this article claims. This single event received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:EVENT. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability... Saqib (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. The article title is irrelevant because the page can be moved to the correct name. If the article contains some promotional language, this can be fixed by editing: WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC) No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I agree the page can be safely renamed, but please do not ignore the fact that many references cited on this page are not even considered RS. Seemingly the event passes GNG but If you scrutinize the sources closely, you will found most of them are press release sites who copy each other (for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). And then some of the material is backed up by RS but is not relevant such as "The trend of getting online and using ..... Pakistan half among them are present on Mobile." Similarly, "Entire Grand Diwali Mela" section is irrelevant in this article, in my opinion. Coverage about the event in the Pakistani RS (such as Dawn, Nation, The News and Daily Pakistan) are published pre-event and are merely press releases if you look at them closely. For example, all the coverage about this event in Dawn is sponsored and paid. See the bylines [9], [10], [11], [12]. The same can be true for press coverage in other Pakistani RS. If indeed this had been a major event, Dawn would had definitely ran a couple of unpaid news stories but they did not. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib:, There is sufficient references in it to be keept, and I wonder how Grand Diwali Mela is irrevalent. Jogi 007 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No sufficient references available. See my above statement. Under the section, you wrote "Grand Diwali Mela in India which was like Tech Mela" however the cited source does not say anything like that which means you have added OR to article, like you've done in the past. --Saqib (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In view of what you have said, I will strike my comment for the time being and re-examine the sources more closely if I have time. James500 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are sufficient references and if some one thinks its a promotional then edit that promotional content please, The Google Tech Mela is titled and it can be verified in the references. Jogi 007 21:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
First thing first, this is non-notable. Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. Can you provide here a single RS which verifies the name of this event "Google Tech Mela" as you claims? --Saqib (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are references you may go through, and here are ref Tech Mela,Tech Mela , [13] in which Tech Mela is clearly written.Jogi 007 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The above provided sources have a poor reputation for facts checking, and has no editorial oversight.. They copy each other and are more like news aggregator sites so I would count them as RS. Daily Pakistan source is okay, but the piece is a pre-event press release. And by the way, this is a Google-supported event. Your own provided sources fails to verify your claim. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please give reasonable justification to keep this page. Where is so called good coverage and references? --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For notability, please see the comment of Mr. James500 Arif80s (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, @James500: has struck down his support. --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@And Adoil Descended: More than half of cited references are not even reliable while many others are paid press releases. --Saqib (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Saqib, You have any proof of paid press releases? If yes please share with us. Arif80s (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the bylines [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Saqib (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You showed only 4 paid press releases out of 25 references. What do think about other references of this article? Arif80s (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comments. Half of the sources are not reliable enough. The rest are merely press releases and pre-event announcements and they fails WP:ORGIND because the information in those press release stories are announcement by the organisers. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear you had pointed out only 4 press releases out of 25 references. Wait for decision of Admins. Arif80s (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the closing admin should take into account the fact that this AfD, along with two other (Amb Jogi and Iqbal Jogi) are very much convassed and contains some arguments without arguments. In-fact most of the users who chimed in never participated in AfDs before. On a similar note, a user has requested speedy deletion of the page under G11. --Saqib (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took down the G11 tag, as it is clearly inappropriate and serves no purpose except to circumvent an on-going discussion which is clearly pointing to the preservation of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@And Adoil Descended: Perhaps your judgement was wrong and thus your NPR has been removed. Merely voting !keep is not enough to rescue AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A highly childish response to an appropriate removal of an erroneous G11 tag. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a google event, so the name is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and this article is precisely that: unambiguous promotion. I also found the sources (even though they are all from well known media outlets (Daily Pakistan, The News International, The Express Tribune, Boy Genius Report,Zee News and The Nation (Pakistan)) suspiciously similar. With the exception of the Tribune, they're virtually identical, and there is no reason to cite them all other than to give the impression that the event has received much attention in the press. I suspect they are all minor rewrites from release by a news agency, probably INP (inp.net.pk). That's not a lot of independent reporting, that's one piece that got republished a number of times. Given the state of the media, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was paid for. It certainly reads that way. Vexations (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (expand) another point I want to make is that all the coverage in the media precedes the event. For a truly notable event, one that received much critical attention and was the subject of in-depth analysis, one would expect to see a lot of coverage AFTER the event took place. That's not the case here. We have announcements, and then nothing. Vexations (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Echo word by word of whatever Saqib and Vexations said.Clear paid-PR-spam.See also the new guidelines, which has been adopted for usage at these cases and the rigorous vetting of sources.I will further not e that, none of the participants over here, seems to have got even tangential ideas about the existence of WP:ATA, which may be a quite-prudential read, in the circumstances.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)I was alerted of this AfD, at my talk-page, which consisted of a notification, sufficiently neutral, to not fell afoul of our canvassing guidelines and neither have I and Saqib, crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.[reply]
How ironic that Winged Blades of Godric is complaining of "canvassing" when his participation in this discussion is blatantly based on Saqib canvassing him to participate [[18]], despite his holier than thou insistence that this is not the case. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Mr. Saqib invited User:Winged Blade of Godric to participate in this discussion which is clearly conflict f interesrt. --Arif80s (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. @Saqib: has no interest in deleting these articles except moving people away from contributing to sum of knowledge, whenever they raise any question to his actions. One such clear example can be found my talk page at English Wikipedia when (in September 2016) I removed list of Karachi from WLM project as Karachi is part of Sindh and he had separately made list for the city and did not do so for other provincial capitals of Pakistan. Then he did not found my significant contributions on English Wikipedia thus he nominated my contributions for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Here is my talk page on Commons where dates and times are very similar to English Wikipedia talk page. Google Tech Mela was created in 2015 but Mr. Saqib has realized it now, otherwise non notable articles articles are deleted within minutes. This clearly shows there is some hidden cause for it. I request WMF supervisors to kindly ban his account on immediate basis, in order to keep contributors from Pakistan attracted towards Wikipedia.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - it was highly inappropriate to remove the G11 tag, this is unadulterated promotion for a non-notable event. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - this requires a fundamental rewrite to become an encyclopedia article, this is blatantly promotional. "...exclusive deals and discounts of up to 30%..." is encyclopedic how? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If article needs a rewrite then it must be rewritten; deleting article is not going to towards a positive contribution.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2018 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Tech_Mela&oldid=833958871"