Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho

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. Policy-based input from established editors makes it clear that Meesho does not meet the guidelines for companies. With regard to the GNG angle, passing mentions especially that are not clearly independent do not really add up to GNG, so this wouldn't pass via either route. Star Mississippi 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meesho[edit]

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

Meesho (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)

Lacks reliable media sources. Most of the links provided deal with investment or acquisition deals. And seems like page was created by someone that was affiliated to the company. NancyAggarwal1999 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2018/vidit-aatrey-sanjeev-barnwal-redefining-distribution-with-meesho/49381/1
  2. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/17/meesho-wants-to-make-selling-through-whatsapp-more-efficient-and-less-painful/
  3. ^ https://www.livemint.com/Companies/yqQRZkZvFAbjX6MHrWZpAP/Meesho-raises-50-million-from-Shunwei-Capital-others-infr.html
    • Response This is a company therefore NCORP applies. None of those references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Forbes reference is based entirely on an interview with the founders (a "puff profile") with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Techcrunch comes with a health warning for notability - WP:TECHCRUNCH - and this article is no different. It is another "puff profile" relying entirely on company information or "told me in an interview" content with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Check our how remarkably similar this article is from the previous Forbes article for example. Finally the Livemint reference is based entirely on what "the company said on Tuesday". It's regurgitated/recycled press release material - check out the exact same quotes and largely the exact same information in this from the Economic Times and this in Fashion Network. All fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do a lot of cleanup. There is very little independent material about the actual business activity of the company (because articles on this topic are all interviews with company personnel), but there are many sources about numerous founding rounds. Of course, promotional tone will have to go. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the funding section has too much info and needs to be summarized, but i agree that the company meets notability guidelines. Zeddedm (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to find over 20 articles through Wikipedia's library regarding the company's business activity, and here are several of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Although I was unable to see the pages, the company is covered on three pages of the 2021 version of International Directory of Company Histories (pages 295-297). This passes WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Firstly, sources provided by GoldMiner24 and Heartmusic678 pretty much clarifies that the page passes WP:GNG. Secondly, yes the funding section requires a clean-up to upright the promotional way it looks. Lastly, I think the company is notable enough to be there on Wikipedia. ManaliJain (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Article easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:CORP. Although it needs some brushing to improve neutrality, cursory Google search shows that Meesho is quite notable in the Indian ecommerce space. There are like 7-8 sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Moreover, it has a unicorn status. To me, this deletion looks like an attack on the company. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It must pass WP:ORG, so we should not talk about any other guidelines. 8 Sources are shared in this AFD page.Here we Go...Adgully is not a reliable source. campaignindia is not reliable, not independent, not even in-depth. Similarly ET, mediannews4u, dfupublications are not having any byline (not independent), Techcrunch, Talkmarkets are unreliable sources. Infact, majority of them are not reliable sources, not a single is in-depth source. All 3 sources shared by GoldMiner24 are vague. Forves is not even about the company, other 2 are not considered reliable. Behind the moors (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Behind the moors. Some of the sources linked here are unusable in general, let alone on a company article. In addition, from the article - TechInAsia is exclusively made up of quotes from founders. Same with techcrunch (from around the same time), but with additional content about business model that repeats company lines. Fortune India is a bit better, having talked to people from outside the company; but even that article suffers from essential facts being sourced to the founders and may only count for partial NORG notability. The rest of the refs are purely routine funding/product announcements. As the company is unlisted, analyst reports are non-existent on public web. Hemantha (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I note editors saying it passes GNG above - that is not the appropriate guidelines, please see WP:SNG (which is a section in GNG)
  • Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. WP:SERIESA (while an essay) appears to be particularly apt in this case. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS that indicates its notability, passes WP:CORP.ZanciD (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)·[reply]
  • Keep Meets NCORP with sources like [9] [10] [11] [12]. One of the most downloaded apps in India [13] [14] and globally [15]. Often cited as the "pioneer" of social commerce in India [16] [17], and last valued at $4.9 billion [18], so not a run of the mill startup. M4DU7 (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As already mentioned above, the SIRS sections of NCORP says that each reference must meet all the criteria - that includes CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. There may also be some confusion over the difference between sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article and the tougher criteria for sources used to establish notability. Just because a source may be used to support a fact/information (passing WP:RS) does not mean it also meets the criteria for establishing notability.
      • This from Forbes India is a standard "puff profile" exhibiting all the usual signs of "describe problem, AHA moment, early struggles, breakthrough, funding, growth and future-hopes" topped off with the obligatory photos. There isn't a single piece of inn-depth "Independent Content" in this article, all of the content relies entirely on information and quotations from the company/founders/funders. Every paragraph includes a quote. Fails WP:ORGIND
      • This from Money Control has a byline of "Moneycontrol learns from sources" and none of the sources providing information are identified. The article relies on 11 or 12 (!!!!) anonymous sources - this is not the basis for any article, this is not reliably sourced information and wouldn't pass the criteria of WP:RS. Cannot be used to establish notability.
      • This from Business Standard is another "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. The only "Independent Content" in the article is the "Expert Take" section which falls well short of WP:CORPDEPTH criteria as it merely poses a question and challenge to the topic company in the future, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
      • This from India Today is a lead front-of-cover "puff profile" magazine story on the topic company and the founders that relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
      • This from Business Standard talks about the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
      • This from Money Control also talks about the number of downloads of the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
      • This from Business Standard is more of the same, talks about the number of downloads of the app, fails CORPDEPTH
      • Fortune India provides a "puff profile" on the founders/company, same standard format as mentioned above including the obligatory photo, fails ORGIND.
      • This from India Express is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH (and probably ORGIND)
      • This from Business Standard is a short article (14 sentences) which essentially provides a short intro to the fact that the company had a fresh funding round. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
The test has nothing to do with it being a "run-of-the-mill startup" or a "billion dollar unicorn" - we need to see references that discuss the company in-depth providing independent analysis/investigation/etc *without* relying entirely on repeating/regurgitating innformation provided by the company or being a "puff profile" on the success story. So far everything we've seen has been firmly within the echo chamber of the company. HighKing++ 11:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets NCORP, per sources providing by keep voters.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Just a reminder that consensus is not a vote counting exercise and there is very little attempt to find a consensus here, no engagement or debate. There are also a number of inexperienced editors or dormant editors who have suddenly reappeared !voting here who may be less familiar with our guidelines. Pinging some of the Keep !voters GoldMiner24, Anton.bersh, Zeddedm, Heartmusic678, ManaliJain, Adamsamuelwilson, zanciD and M4DU7. to justify their !votes. Some incorrectly used GNG as the guideline - this is a company so NCORP applies. Others say that the sources meet the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've provided reasoning above on each reference as to why they fail our NCORP criteria. Nobody has engaged with this analysis to debate it or to attempt to refute it. Ginbopewz says above that it meets NCORP as per the sources but fails to provide any meaningful justification. I've also analysed these very same sources and shown that they fail NCORP - perhaps that editor or some other can point to specific passages in a specific reference that meet NCORP? Can any other editors do the same? Particular attention should be paid to the definition of "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this Bloomberg Quint article:
  • Sharma, Nishant. "Meesho Is Turning Housewives Into WhatsApp Entrepreneurs". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 2022-03-08.
It has intellectual independence as the "Caution Ahead" section contains independent analysis and doubts about the app. Along with the International Directory of Company Histories Volume 226 reference noted by Heartmusic it may be enough (I also can't read it, but can verify there is an entry, and the directories entries are generally ORGCRIT compliant). But the article is also in a poor state so I'm not inclined to cast a hard vote. Jumpytoo Talk 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Except the "Caution Ahead" section contains no in-depth information on the company. Also there really isn't any "independent analysis" worth shaking a stick at as you've stated. At best maybe there's a single sentence? So long as nobody figures out that those sentences simply echo the quotes from affiliated persons.... But I take your point on the book, could be a good reference (and most likely is) although we need multiple references. HighKing++ 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis of the Bloomberg piece. There is 5 paragraphs of independent & in-depth coverage of the app by expressing concerns about how the app is vulnerable to competition though aggressive expansion into underserved regions and that the quality of the products of poor impacting sellers earnings, which is supported by information from Priyanka who is a Meesho seller and two expert analysts: Ankur Pahwa from Ernst & Young, Satish Meena from Forrester Research. I found no evidence either of the expert analysts or their companies have ties to Meesho, and the Meesho seller is only cited to support doubts about the app so I consider her an independent source. I understand that usually company =/= it's products but here Meesho is the companies only product so I consider them the same entity. The article could be converted into one about the app through normal editing. Jumpytoo Talk 19:04, 8 March 2022 (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/Meesho&oldid=1081397555"