Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysmartprice (2nd nomination)

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. So Why 07:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysmartprice

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

An advertorially toned page on a web site that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Karthikkumarsunder currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

The first AfD in 2015 had low participation and closed as "keep", but the sources presented there likewise did not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive coverage in reliable sources provided by 49.205.250.157 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysmartprice. The articles in The Economic Times, Business Line, and Business Standard provide substantial coverage about the subject so that Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is met. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.trivial company of no encyclopedic interest.?The only possible purpose of this article is to promote the endeavor. Whether it technically manages to just pass the guidelines is irrelevant, if it is clear that the purpose is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To see the validity of the sources, read them: #1/their web site, #2/obvious PR, where the company makes claims with little basis, #3/almost identical, #4/ditto, very similar, #5/ very similar also #6 & #7, brief mentions in a list, #8/ back to the original press release, #9 just the same #10 very similar, #11 /almost exactly the same. Multiple press releases do not add to notability , but this is something special, the same press release, published 8 times in different papers. It is clear that the 8 stories, although not exactly copyvios of each other, are based upon the same handout from the company. This to me is very good evidence for the uselessness of articles of businesses from Indian newspapers for notability . They tried another press release here, but they apparently hired someone with enough skill to write one in our format. Original 2 editors blocked sockpuppets from a large ring of sockpuppets [1]; thats's when the article should have been deleted, but people apparently didn't realize in 2015 just how bad sources like these were. Most recent substantial ed has obviously similar behavior. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG. This article clearly fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Not pointing to any editors in particular, but I think some editors are clearly confusing the acceptance of Reliable Sources for establishing facts (even if those facts have been provided by the company or their officers) and the criteria for establishing notability (which is a tougher standard for sources) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just advertising in fact i believe it qualifies for speedy deletion--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:CSD#G5; I don't know why we allow ourselves to waste our breath over things like this~~. Actually, thanks to Nyttend I do know ;) I totally forgot to check the history. Gutted. Sorry about that! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive sources that shows notability. The Economic Times source and Business Line sources are great just as an example. Per WP:GNG. May I note that most of the Delete !votes doed not extend beyond "Per nom" or promo without expanding.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What's the actual claim to notability, here? These sources come from recognizable domains, but that's meaningless if the articles themselves are pure puffery. Many of these sources in ostensibly reliable outlets use the same trite phrases. The founder's "relied on [their] core strength - product management and technology" to "gain a slice of the action" is repeated by different outlets, once as a quote, and another time as an original statement! This flattering, empty style of writing severely undermines claims to reliability. This appears to be churnalism based on a press-packet, at best. Subversive advertising techniques, such as churnalism and paid Wikipedia sock puppetry, raise the bar of notability, because otherwise the system becomes even easier to abuse. Until substantial, neutral coverage exists, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV does not trump Guidelines. And IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant when comparing to notable and extensive sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not notable or extensive sources, so the article should be deleted until something notable and extensive is published, because to let these lackluster sources slide would be accommodating spammers. We may sometimes give borderline sources the benefit of the doubt, but we do not have any obligation to do that. I don't think these are as good as you say, but even if they are merely borderline, the spam issue should not be completely ignored. WP:NOTADVERTISING is policy, which does, actually, trump guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in there for Wikipedia significance. Another blatant promotional driven Indian stanrtup on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the sources presented and mentioned by Cunard. Despite the high participation, clear consensus whether the sources mentioned are enough to prove notability does not yet exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources had already been commented on by DGG and I agreed with his reasoning and went on to state that some editors confuse the criteria for establishing whether a resource is reliable over whether a reference meets the criteria for notability. Grayfell then also commented on the sources and dismissed them as not being neutral. Nevertheless, here's an analysis on the sources provided by Cunard:
- The indiatimes article is a classic "advertorial" that follows the well-used format of "History-of-Founders -> Description of Problem -> Lightbulb moment -> Extensive description of solution including quotes/photos of founders -> Funding raised". The article fails WP:ORGIND as it is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.
- This thehindubusinessline article fails for the exact reasons as the previous source. It is an advertorial (follows the same format) and fails WP:ORGIND as the article is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.
- The Business Standard article is yet another advertorial following roughly the same format as the previous sources. It also fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons - the article is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.

I see now new material and no reasons to change my !vote. I'd be surprised if others like Jonnymoon96 or Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi or Arthistorian1977 changed their !votes either. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing and DGG's analysis of the sources. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING among others. Clearly created as a promotional article by someone with at WP:COI. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2017 (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.