Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe

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. Nakon 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReGlobe

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

Highly promotional article, the sources are essentially press releases/ DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a private start-up launched two years ago which pretty comprehensively fails WP:ORG. Note that while the article claims it was started in 2012, their own website says that it was launched in 2013. [1] Having examined the sources, I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based. The article is clearly written to drum up business. Even if kept, 80% of it would need to be removed. Although this it is not in itself a reason to delete, I note that this has all the earmarks of a "paid for" article—springing fully formed from a brand new editor as their first edit, complete with perfectly formatted infobox and "references". Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use more content, but checking the references I find: #1 a substantial article #2 dead link #3 a promotional site (you write your own content) #4 mention #5 mention #6 article about getting significant VC funding #7 substantial article (local biz journal, AFAIK) #8&#9 no longer link to relevant article. I would say that #1, 6 & 7 are enough to establish notability. The article does need to be updated. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously promotional/paid for article. #6 is borderline WP:ROUTINE, #7's use of bold blinded me in addition to being a very promotional article from a very small news organization whose website looks like this. #1 is the only reliable significant coverage of this business, but the article cannot rest on the back of that single source and LaMona has already ruled out the remaining sources. This Wikipedia article was clearly written with the intention of promoting the company and needs a good bit of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe I missed something, but I do not see why a "promotional" article needs deleted if it is notable. Anything can be stripped down to a few basic statements establishing notability. While some of the coverage looks routine, there are references out there such as this [2] that look like they would support notability. Not sure how to vote yet, but wanted to point out that promotion shouldn't be a reason for deletion when we could simply cut out the majority of the article which is promotional.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TTTommy111: No, you didn't miss anything. You're 100 percent right. Articles that are promotional should be tagged promo, but some editors ignore that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage including recent deal with Amazon [3], covered here —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only sources that I could find are just deals relating to the company, which does not contribute to WP:CORP notability. Esquivalience ^t 14:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about the company itself [4], [5], [6] as well as additional coverage of its VC funding [7], [8] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those "articles" is a press release from the company (or the VC firm funding it) or is quite explicitly based on one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore Which press releases are the profile ones from, specifically? Why does this one and this one have conversational style quotes that appear nowhere else? —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is from indianweb2.com, a blog where start-ups can publicize themselves. See their "about us" and also scroll to the bottom of the "article" and observe the author's blurb:

"A graduate working as a mechanical engineer, Vinay loves to talk and learn about everyone's story and then pen it down. In case you wish to get yours done, shoot a message to him at..."

The second one from youstory.com is more of the same. See their "about us":

"India’s no.1 media platform for entrepreneurs [...] At YourStory, we have a singular passion – to tell the world your story and to enable your story!"

There are loads of sites like this which exist to provide publicity platforms for start-ups and generate faux "media stories" for them complete with quotes. Coverage in such sources does not indicate genuine notability. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. So, to sum up, first you claimed "every one" of the articles was a press release. So either you lied about that, which I am definitely not accusing you of, but the only other alternative is you never even looked at them in the first place. Oops... that, combined with your "delete" comment above, indicates strongly the reasons why you are against this article, and it's nothing to do with GNG... Even though you're now admitting they're not press releases but they're not good enough sources for you because of your theory that they exist only as a sham to deliver "faux" news, rather than genuinely covering the thriving tech startup scene in India that is a huge industry with a worldwide audience. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my original delete comment "I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based" and I stand by that per my analysis of the YourStory.com and indianweb2.com stories which you queried. And yes, I did examine all the sources in the article before !voting delete. You are of course entitled to disagree with my analysis, just as I think you have a rather naive view of the PR business. The Forbes article you linked to is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ReGlobe isn't even mentioned in it. The fact that the start-up phenomenon is "big" in India, does not make every Indian start-up notable. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shiite you don't know what a press release is if you think the yourstory.com and indianweb2.com articles are "press release-based" and not "interview-based"... Please link to the press release that these come from. It shouldn't take you too long. And I know about the PR business, but I'm more concerned about Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and the crew that have so much sand in their vaginas about paid editors on WP that they nominate for AfD every article they suspect of being written by one, regardless of that being true and also regardless of the article's notability, just to prove a WP:POINT. Well that's it - I don't want to keep you from your search from finding the press releases that those ~~interviews~~ press releases come from! —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now because all in all, they actually haven't received as much coverage as it could be, sure the Amazon deal is good but it's basically the best known thing. Searches here (results start to fade by page 3), here (two links), here (browser finding some of the same links) and here (one press release and the other albawaba.com) all sum to not much. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Earlier left a comment, but now leaving a keep vote. Despite the promotional tone, the article has sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. I would recommend that if it survives this deletion discussion that maybe those voting for delete can reduce the promotional tone by taking the article down to just the basics. Google news has plenty of coverage, including the International Business Times, Times of India, etc. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2015 (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.