Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Country Mobile

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. This has already been relisted three times which is an unusual action but appropriately called for in this situation. While I understand the concerns about editors with unusual AfD profiles participating here, I can find no policy/guideline which would allow me to weight their views at zero - they are members of the community in good standing after all. As such I must evaluate consensus formed by the participants in this discussion and the answer simply is that there is no consensus for keep or delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Country Mobile

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

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

After removing all unreliable sources, several related to the linked to the same fake news network, no sources are left. Vexations (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is a major telecommunications company in Dubai and it has been published in several newspapers where online version is not available for them. It has well over 500,000 retail outlets, which easily makes it notable. If a page doesn't have source on the page and really if we cant read Arabic, it doesn't mean that company is non-notable. It is a definite keep, ask anyone who lives in Dubai or anyone who can read Arabic. Eddyben21 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddyben21's only contributions have been to add a spamlink for a an article that was deleted under G11 as Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and to My Country Mobile. Vexations (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My Country Mobile is a major telecommunication company in Dubai and certainly has one of the major networks and majority of their news is in print media and if the news is not available online, it doesn't mean that it is non-notable. If nominator knows someone in Dubai, he will say it is blindly notable. To give an example, it is T-mobile of Dubai. 94.204.128.4 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— 94.204.128.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this company does not appear to be notable. The only references to the company are from its own website, from user generated content or paid PR pieces in non-reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a one of the biggest company and has several newspaper mentioned in Dubai. This company definitely deserves a space in the Wikipedia. Alanfranc (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanfranc's only contributions have been to add a spamlink for an article that was deleted under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and to this deletion discussion. Seems likely that there is a concerted effort to keep this page alive for advertising purposes. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are newspapers sources, although they can't be accessed these can be considered as a valid news sources. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company has sources in Arabic from Al-Ittihad and Al Bayan, that are clearly RS. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shashanksinghvi334, the only sources in the article are brandnewstoday.com, medium.com, popdiaries.com, ibtimes.co.in, m.dailyhunt.in, thestatesman.com, freepressjournal.in, finance.yahoo.com where are Al-Ittihad and Al Bayan? Not in the article. Vexations (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a major telecommunication company and they have sources offline newspapers, which passes WP:GNG. Patrickbetzig (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrickbetzig, can you cite those offline sources please? Vexations (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion on offline sources and sources overall
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The test is not merely for "independent sources", newspapers, offline or otherwise. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "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. Not a single one of the sources contains Independent Content and this topic fails notability as per GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I am not sure what other reliable news references you cannot find it, there are sources from Deccan Chronicle, Business Standard and Times of India. link 1, link 2, link 3. I can find these links in one go, it is definitely a keep for me. 103.115.206.243 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — 103.115.206.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I've said above, the "test" for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is more than just a source being "reliable". It must also contain Independent Content. This from Business Standard is classic churnalism, reads remarkably like the Deccan Chronicle reference, and relies entirely on information provided by the company as well as two extensive quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND. This from India Times is also based on information provided by the company - it says it in the heading and the first paragraph , also fails WP:ORGIND. Your last reference, from Deccan Chronicle has no attributed journalist, is classic churnalism and is a barely disguised ad. Much of the text is the exact same as the Business Standard reference. It has no indications of any Independent Content and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a keep: So you want to say that these are not reliable articles? I am surprised that you have not even deep dived into the sources and comment. Here is a disclaimer for promotional content on India's largest newspaper 2.6 million daily circulation. So, you want to say that they should use a set template for a news that you believe will be reliable? Even on Business Standard, Deccan Chronicle are also not reliable, they also clearly publish any content with disclaimer. Neha Alawadhi from Business Standard is a Senior Reporter, Times of India is published by their own media house and same is with Deccan. Highking, are you questioning reliability of these Indian Newspapers? I need to share your feedback with them that you claim that these are paid stories. I will highly highly highly recommend to stop looking things from your perception and start looking at a broader perspective that is broadly acceptable. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more definite a Delete - Your attempt to put words in my mouth with statements such as "So you want to say that these are not reliable articles" and "I need to share your feedback with them that you claim that these are paid stories" is an obvious smokescreen to create a diversion from the central facts. Even ignoring the implied threat with the second statement, your statements aren't even remotely close to what I said. I'll briefly recap/repeat. Being reliable is a necessary requirement but it *isn't* the *only* requirement by a long shot. So when you keep yammering on about the sources being "reliable", that simply shows that you are not aware of the requirements for Companies/Organisation which you can find at WP:NCORP. What is most noticeable is that the Keep !voters are not addressing the requirement that articles (which are used to establish notability) must include "Independent Content" ... but now I'm just repeating my first comment so I refer you to that. The articles in question have zero Independent Content and in fact meet the definition of churnalism. The articles are regurgitations of company-produced "news" and rely entirely on information produced/provided by sources linked to the company and/or interviews/quotations from company executives. The journalists provide zero "extra" info and certainly there is no evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, while those sources may be used to support facts/figures within the article (as the only requirement for that use is "reliable source"), they may *not* be used to establish notability. I highly recommend you read our policies and guidelines, especially WP:NCORP and in particular the sections WP:ORGIND because the evidence so far is that you haven't fully grasped what is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brand News Today is a fake news site. See: https://www.brandnewstoday.com/contact/ Vexations (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: This AfD is from 19 January 2020. [1] was published February 12, 2020, 17:03 IST [2] was published February 12, 2020, 20:33 IST [3] February 13, 2020, 08:01 IST. An IP then posted he reply above on 06:11, 13 February 2020 UTC (11:41 IST) barely 3 1/2 hours later. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you want to say that you want to delete the page because when you have raised AFD, there were no sources, but now they have sources still it should be deleted? Look at the sources, they are best in the class and there can't be better sources than these in India. If you delete it, almost 95% of the company pages from India have the same sources that are considered reliable. Think from a broader perspective and not from just your point of view. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep - article substantially changed since the AFD opened. Noted sources have been added; passes WP:GNG. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapiljaink3 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An argument has been raised that none of the references provided meets the criteria for establishing notability and that therefore this topic fails the test for notability. At the time of writing this comment, none of the Keep !voters have made more that 75 edits and most have made a single digit number of edits, mostly connected with this topic. This indicates some canvassing and raises suspicions of some possible puppetry. The Keep !votes to date are merely vague waves to our guidelines and none have provided any cogent arguments as to *why* the reliable sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My Country Mobile is one of the biggest company and they have sources from all the reliable news that passes the WP:GNG.Mrjaroli (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You say they have sources from all the reliable news that passes the WP:GNG. I say, yes, they have references from reliable sources but that is not sufficient for establishing notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability therefore this topic fails GNG/NCORP guidelines. All references that are in the article or which were mentioned here have been checked and none meet the criteria. If you believe a reference meets the criteria, please post a link here. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing these are the English sources I could find. Perhaps Arabic and Indian language sources may be available since it operates mainly in these regions. Gritmem (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How odd - another editor with <75 edits pops into the discussion. Anyway, you haven't provided any links to any articles in any language. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 22 February 2020 (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.