Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliance Globalcom

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Globalcom[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Sourced mainly to SEC filings, and without sufficient independent secondary sourcing so as to establish notability, Article has been heavily edited over the years by at least seven SPAs and an account associated with the company itself, and most recently has employed a paid editing service, but all of these efforts have failed, as the sourcing just isn't there. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ordinarily merger would be a solution, and at first I was inclined to agree, but there seems to be very little worth preserving here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Seriously, Coretheapple... how about you drop the revenge editing based on wiki-stalking, grow up, and help us So fix it? - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)— 208.116.141.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Linking to Bing search results showing non-notable websites and press releases is unhelpful. The company, to be notable, requires multiple secondary sources. As the editing history of this AfD will indicate, somebody associated with the company was so insecure about the fate of the article that it employed ~~sockpuppets to disrupt this discussion, and now unleashed~~ an SPA IP editor engaging in personal attacks and vandalism. You're employed or paid by the company, editing from one of the company's computers "On advice from MyWikiBiz, this article has been sufficiently trimmed of the excessive marketing language. Disclosure: I am working from a Reliance Globalcom network". This was a red flag for proper scrutiny and not "wikistalking." And yes, the fact that the company, represented by you, can't bring the article up to Wikipedia standards is a good indicator that it just can't be done by volunteeers. I see from the edit history that the article was heavily edited by a succession of SPAs over the years[1] [2][3][4][5][6], as well as User:Reliance.globalcom, so you're not the first, and yet the article still fails to satisfy WP:CORP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen for minute, Coretheapple -- you might learn something. The link I gave to Bing News archives contains the following sources on the first page:
Reliance Globalcom lures Pacnet's Bill Barney to CEO post, authored by Sean Buckley for Fierce Telecom, which is frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Reliance Globalcom Unveils New Name, Cloud Business Plan, authored by Michelle Maisto for EWeek, which is very frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Reliance Globalcom upgrades trans-atlantic submarine network with Ciena’s GeoMesh, found in CIOL, which is frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

You spotted a couple of press releases, and you damned the entire library of sources. This shows that you are not fit for evaluating sources, due to your harassment and wiki-stalking of my edits today on Wikipedia. What is wrong with you? (Also, see below that your obsession with "sockpuppets" is also out of place here.) - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not notable and even if they were, what you cite fail WP:AUD. Yes, I realize they're fine for you, because you work for the company. AfD debates are internal processes for Wikipedia editors, and are not a place for article subjects, their employees and agents to weigh in, even if they weren't being abusive as you are. I realize this article matters a lot to the company, because the company created an account to edit the article, and then, both before and after that account was blocked, dispatched a half-dozen people to create accounts to work on this article. Obviously Wikipedia is a high p.r. priority for the company. I get that. It's not uncommon, and I really sympathize with all the effort, but the sources just aren't there. They've obviously invested a fair sum of money in getting this article up and running, so the passion is evident. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you describe the Wall Street Journal as passing WP:AUD? If so, then there is this. How about Financial Times? If so, then there is this. Do you see how silly you're beginning to look, Coretheapple? The company has laid telecommunications cables across entire oceans! Do you realize what a monumental human undertaking that is? You sit there with your arms crossed, saying, "Nope, that's not notable, because I've never heard of this company, and I'm in a butthurt rage about the editor this morning being smarter than me, so I CAN HAZ TO RETALEEATEZ!" Grow up, Coretheapple. - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've been around Wikipedia a very long time, certainly long enough to be familiar with WP:NPA, and also to know that resorting to juvenile personal attacks is a sign of desperation. Those articles are so insignificant that they aren't even used as sources for this article. What's required is depth of coverage, not tied-together press releases and copying from SEC filings self-published by the company. I know you love this company dearly, and the company loves itself so dearly that it has deployed considerable resources to putting this article in Wikipedia and keeping it there. But it still has to meet notability standards. Let's see what independent editors, those with no stake in the company, have to say. That's why we're having this discussion. Remember WP:DONTPANIC? Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get one thing straight. This whole nomination is a personal attack, Coretheapple. You know that. The only reason you came to the article about Reliance Globalcom today was because I said something that you didn't like, on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I cannot think of a more petty and juvenile thing you could do -- especially when you were given actual evidence that a PR firm had completely doctored David B. Rivkin, but you sat back and mocked that notification. That article, you didn't touch. No, you came to the Reliance Globalcom article to do your trolling, because you thought that would upset me. Well, guess what, Coretheapple? You're going to lose this battle, either way. You know why? Because if the article stays, then I "win", because you wanted it deleted. If the article gets deleted, guess what? I have several very good friends who work for one of the United States' biggest competitors of Reliance Globalcom. If the article gets deleted, I'll forward them this discussion, letting them know that I was 208.116.141.100 today, and then they are going to be so pleased, we're going to laugh all night as they buy me a steak dinner and a bottle of the best Shiraz in the house. Sorry if that blows your mind, Coretheapple, but it's 100% true. It would appear that you just wasted a bunch of time today, ~~trolling~~ toiling away hopelessly on your precious, inviolable Wikipedia. - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~You're not affiliated with the company? Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Wow, you are really perhaps one of the densest minds I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. If you haven't "gotten" it by now, we'll try one more time -- I have no affiliation with Reliance Globalcom, other than I happen to be logging into one of their WiFi hotspots today. That will be all I have to say on this matter. Good luck with the AfD! (Remember, either outcome, I win!) - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Aw shucks, I am stupid! Yes that is surely the most credible explanation for your passion on this subject. You just happened to be using one of their computers on behalf of MyWikiBiz, a paid-editing mill. By the way, just so you know, you've got to keep your IPs straight. You made no comments on Jimbo's talk page about Rivkin, you just vandalized that discussion on a couple of occasions. No, the comments about Rivkin were made when you logged on under IP 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 208.116, but I thought I'd point out in his defense that you seem to be wrong again, Coretheapple. User:208.116 did in fact contribute to the Rivkin discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. If you're this atrocious with reviewing simple diffs as evidence, you maybe shouldn't be guiding Wikipedia's content decisions, either. - 2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Mr. 2001/208 etc., that diff shows only that you vandalized another editor's post, just as I said. Please stop claiming that you're two separate people, when you're clearly the same person. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you said on NawlinWiki's talk page[7] that "MyWikiBiz= has advised me on my edits to Reliance Globalcom." You really need to get your story straight. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
How is being advised by MyWikiBiz some sort of "lock" or guarantee that 208.116 is affiliated with Reliance Globalcom? If anything, it is appearing more and more that 208.116's passion is either winding you up, Coretheapple, or seeing that the Reliance Globalcom page gets deleted (a "joe job"), or quite probably both. Whatever the case, you've come off as pretty much stark-raving mad; certainly no asset to the Wikipedia project. - 2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
You clearly are the same person as Mr. 208, and aside from pretending to be two different people, you are a sock of a banned editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out comment from ban-evading sock of User:MyWikiBiz. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm staying neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but can we stop talking about the sockpuppets already? They were created by banned User:Mr Wiki Pro, who is not related to either Coretheapple or 208.116.141.100. He has been disrupting a different random AFD every day for the past few days with a new set of sockpuppets. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm satisfied as to that, so I struck out the comments referring to the socks, but the rest stand. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Reliance Communications. Not finding in-depth secondary source coverage. Google and HighBeam searches get tons of trade press articles that appear to be regurgitated press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Coretheapple makes great arguments. - 50.144.0.4 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Gene. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable by itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this while catching up on all the latest kerfuffle about Greg (whom I know from Wikipediocracy, where I'm a staff member) and MyWikiBiz. Maybe I am missing something here, but I am not finding a lack of sources: Reuters, Economic Times of the Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express, etc. These are hundreds of articles, including in India's biggest national dailies, and articles like this or this or this don't look like press releases to me. To be sure, I don't see many good sources cited in the article, but article quality is different from notability. And why is this in UK-related deletion discussions, if it's an Indian company? Andreas JN 466 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the company is the principal author of this article, it can't be ignorant of the sources you cite. These are regurgitated press releases, no depth of coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're in Hoover's [8][9], which is one of the criteria given in WP:CORP (WP:LISTED). But yes, looking more closely, I can't find decent coverage either. :/ --Andreas JN 466 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's because they're a subsidiary of a public company. Interesting that that's part of the notability criteria, as Hoover's lists pretty much everybody. Coretheapple (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company. --Andreas JN 466 02:59, 20 May 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.