Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koimoi

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 no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi[edit]

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

Not notable. Promotional and may include COI editing. References are mostly press releases, quotes and internet stats. Little depth to the coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt any COI involvement in the article history with the main editors of article. Even if there was any, the current article is hardly promotional in tone. But i have a different question. Although the subject might lack WP:CORP, do we keep articles of subjects that we consider WP:RS? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A decent stubby article on a website which is an RS which serves its area. Current version not promotional in tone. Nom's assertion that it "may include COI editing" is unfounded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't remember now why I thought it might be COI, possibly due to other linked articles, but it is the lack of depth to the coverage that is the problem.

I have just been through the refs:

1 is internet stats

2 is not about the subject

3 also is not about the subject

4 looks like a press release

5 is some sort of internet stats/advertising site

6 is a blurb from one of their software suppliers about their customer

7 is the firm itself.

Not a single RS that discusses the firm itself in depth. This is advertising and fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts as nominator. I maintain my "keep" and await input from Indian Wikipedians able to offer and evaluate non-English sources. As India has a population several times larger than all the West combined and not all sources will be online, I expect patience will out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather putting the cart before the horse to say that "lots of articles use it as a source and therefore it is notable". a reliable source is one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and it is difficult to establish that such a reputation exists if there is no reputation at all demonstrated by other sources. [1] and it does not look like it has been vetted formally to be accepted as a WP:RS reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been vetted in our WP:RS system as it hasn't been challenged yet anytime on any article. This site is used as reference in the FA Kareena Kapoor Khan, FL List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and GAs Parineeti Chopra, Mullum Malarum, Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara!, Huma Qureshi (actress), Aashiqui 2 at the least. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 11 March 2014 (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.