Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Right Services

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. Sandstein 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Right Services[edit]

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

DePRODed by a user who violated his interaction ban....but here we are anyway. I still confirm both of my PRODs: here and my newest one (before I noticed this) both basically saying that all available coverage is only for press attention, news about funding and its state as a "starting company" with my searches mirroring this availability of sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article, specifically: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources offered above are rather trivial and insufficient to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia article. An unremarkable tech company with sources that don't meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: can you give any more detail as to why the sources I've cited are inadequate? To my assessment, they seem reliable, coverage is significant and not locally oriented. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, one of the sources is a republished press release (no byline): "MrRight Services launches Mobile App to Hire Home Service Professionals in Delhi NCR" Republished company PR is not enough coverage to satisfy CORPDEPTH and build an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not news (about new services being launched) and not a web host to house a replica of a company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: which reference are you referring to here? The three I posted all have bylines. Also, the availability of multiple (2 or more) qualified sources is adequate evidence of notability; You're going to have to disqualify all but one of the references cited in the article and given here in order to make a convincing not-notable argument. ~Kvng (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to financial express. Which ones did you add? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I included three new references with my keep comment above and you disparaged "sources offered above" in your delete comment. Apparently somehow we're not talking about the same sources. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources:
- Link no 1 is based on the interview with the subject; "That is when he and his childhood friend Mayank Agrawal decided to work on a model where these services and servicemen would be available at “convenience and at a fixed price”. “That is how Mr Right was started, with 50-60 handymen in June 2013,” recollects co-founder Agrawal." etc.
- Link no 2 is a rehash of a press release: "Mr. Right, an online home improvement aggregator connects homeowners to the best home repair professionals in and around the neighbourhood. According to their press release, Mr. Right, also known as the ‘Uber’ of household services, will be launching a pilot program called ‘Elite Fleet’ in conjunction with their app which is expected to standardise the unstructured and haphazard local home services marketplace at least in Delhi NCR for now."
- Link no 3 is also an interview: ""We realised very quickly that we couldn't keep scaling with the current model, and we looked at the model of Uber and Ola to figure out the next step," he tells us. This means that the people who come to your house to deliver a service are not Mr Right employees, but contractors that the company has vetted and registered in their database." -- this is all trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair assessment as far as it goes. Why do you beleive these can't be used to established notability? Attention from the press is what fundamentally establishes notability and this appears to be demonstrated here. To ague otherwise, you need to show that these sources are not reliable, that coverage is trivial or, per WP:AUD (as a special condition for organizations), that coverage is solely from local media. There is nothing untoward about using an interview as an indication of notability. The interview indicates that the reporter and editors considered the subject notable enough to spend the time conducting, writing up and publishing the interview. Similar for a rehash of a press release, in some cases at least. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases and interviews are trivial mentions insufficient to establish notability. Just because the subject is mentioned in the press does not mean that an encyclopedia article needs to be created. Wikipedia is not news and not a promotional vehicle. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can read WP:SIGCOV to exclude an interview of the company founder talking about the company which is the subject of this article. I assume you're referring to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTPROMOTION. If these problems exist in the article (I don't beleive they do), they can be fixed through editing. Deletion is not the preferred means of dealing with this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 12 August 2016 (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.