Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deliveree

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 delete. WaggersTALK 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deliveree

[edit]

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

Deliveree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company fails to meet WP:ORGCRITE. Nothing found in reliable sources in-depth. All the references are primary, tech and finance blogposts. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep; there is another Wikipedia page in another language for the company that looks pretty well-sourced. You can review that and then come to a further decision. I know it's another operation altogether in terms of non-English language Wikipedias as to how they run them, but if the company withstood the scrutiny test there regarding notability, why can't it be bestowed here based on the sources? JRed176 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If an editor here who knows Indonesian looks at the sources in that article and can show that they are sufficient to sustain an article then those sources can be used here. We can't take the fact that an article was created two or three months ago on another Wikipedia and has not withstood any scrutiny test there as any evidence of notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The initial recommendation to delete this page contains a substantial amount of western bias. The company qualifies as notable under WP:ORGCRITE as it is the main subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are both secondary and completely independent of the subject. The sources are:
- TechCrunch
- Business Times
- DealStreetAsia
- Tech in Asia
- TechNode Global
- The Loadstar
- Kompas
- Tempo
- BeritaSatu
Some of these sources, notably Business Times, DealStreetAsia, TechinAsia, Kompas, Tempo, and BeritaSatu are well established sources in Asia which may not be familiar to the editor who made the initial recommendation for deletion. None are blog posts or blogs as the editor incorrectly states. WKAsia (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WKAsia, This nomination wasn't on the basis of western biasness as you people always claim. I am aware of and familiar all the sources you listed above and searched thoroughly before nomination. All the websites are unreliable and news agregator except Business Times, Kompas and BeratiaSatu, if you take a look on the wiki pages of those websites you would find notability tags too , but here we aren't discussing these sources. If you see on the subject, its flooded with reference and just covering "Deliveree raises USD 70 million in series C funding" news in the same dates after each other. I can't find anything noteworthy other than that to comply with the companies notability guidelines. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. So what does that mean? In summary, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - so the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant, we're looking solely at the quality of content. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In short, references that rely almost *entirely* on announcements or information provided by the company or their execs fail ORGIND.
I've looked at the references including those that WKAsia mentions above. For example, the TechCrunch article (like most TechCrunch articles) relies entirely on regurgitating and puffing up an announcement ("announced today that it has raised a $70 million Series C...") using quotes from the CEO with absolutely zero "Independent Content". Fails NCORP criteria miserably. The Business Times reference fails for the same reason. WP:SERIESA essay is relevant here. I'm unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, thank you for your explanations. To help address your comments, I have added a new citation from BeritaSatu, a large and reputed news organization in Indonesia, that should suffice as independent content and reporting. The nature of business and news reporting in this part of the world tends to be more fact based and generally lacks the the spirit of investigative journalism and independent reporting that you’re referring to. This may help to explain why there is a substantial lack of Asia based content in Wikipedia’s English site – this is something we are attempting to address by adding this page.   WKAsia (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WKAsia, perhaps your definitions are different but I don't consider regurgitated PR and announcements to be fact based reporting (other than reporting on the fact that an announcement was made and what the company said). What we require is that the journalist has created some in-depth Independent Content. I can't see anything in the new references that shows they meet NCORP - the references invariably rely on announcements and/or information provided by company execs. HighKing++ 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to meet the relevant standard, as Highking points out. XOR'easter (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that press release materials have been abused to bulk up the prose and referencing in this article. However, upon close analysis of the individual sources, I believe there is enough independent coverage to keep the article and endorse a rewrite instead. When I exclude all the Series C news (which account for at least half of the citations) and cross reference against Deliveree's press releases (Indonesian and English), I'm left with the following:
  • Digital News Asia: [1]
  • Tech in Asia: [2] [3]
  • Kompas: [4] [5]
  • DealStreetAsia: [6] (Covers Series C news, but first few sentences appear to have a more neutral tone. Need to get around paywall to evaluate more accurately.)
—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi Arsonal, you say that "there is enough independent coverage". Let's go over the sources but first lets check what we're looking for. I've already posted the requirements above including the definition of "Independent Content". It is important to remember the criteria doesn't evaluate or consider volume of coverage (or "enough" coverage) or an aggregation of coverage. As per WP:SIRS, *each* reference must meet *all* the requirements and we simply need "multiple" i.e. two references. Each must be significant and in-depth. And each must contain "Independent Content" and that content must be clearly identifiable as such.
Arsonal, perhaps you'd like to review your !vote in light of the above? Or perhaps you can point to another source which you believe meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 15:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arsonal appreciate the objective viewpoint. Your suggestion is a reasonable approach and I agree with it. I very much welcome the Wikipedia editorial community to edit/rewrite this article based on the independent coverage available here and elsewhere on the internet. Moreover, while I appreciate the rigorousness with which this current article is being evaluated, I also note that it does not seem that the same level of rigor is being applied to many other pages in the Wikipedia English universe. For example, I reference another company that is not too dissimilar to Deliveree called Lalamove. The sources used for this page rely nearly entirely on company content and press releases with the single exception of the Forbes article. WKAsia (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WKAsia, while I understand what you're trying to say, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a productive argument to be had in deletion discussions. Deletion is an article-by-article evaluation and not meant to be an assessment across articles. I will attempt to draft a rewrite. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arsonal thank you, I think a rewrite and further contributions/edits from the rest of the Wikipedia editorial community is a reasonable way to proceed. WKAsia (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2023 (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/Deliveree&oldid=1136954575"