Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomartel

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. ✗plicit 10:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solomartel[edit]

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

Solomartel (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. All the information about this company comes from company-sponsored press-releases. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have undone your changes because the page is still in development and those sources can indeed be replaced by other ones but removing all of them at once will only make things worse by making the job more complicated, even among the press releases, 30% only were Press releases and those releases were from third party companies, i.e OCBC bank and the public investment fund of Saudi arabia, the Articles about the PIF almost exclusively brag about that specific organization and dedicated only one paragraph to Solomartel.The remaining ones, I.e 70% of those were legitimate news articles, those were legitimate articles covering investment deals, they were written in a neutral tone and were not promotional articles, plz add evidence to your claim that would nullify the nature of the article. Moreover, all news outlets need to disclose paid advertising content, even among the Press releases, news organizations always verify the legitimacy of the news pieces before publishing any content on their platforms even for Paid press releases, to try this yourself, contact any PR firm and try to publish any piece of news without clear evidence and having them dig up an investigation. Plz feel free to contribute but plz be more careful with my work so as to not vandalize it, will only make things worse and more difficult for me, I thank you very much in advance. SUPERGTOR (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor, that's never had a previous account here for sure, I can see how you're confused. You chose to create this page in article space; it's live and subject to editorial policy and guidelines. If you'd like to use the draft space in the future, that's probably a good place where you can claim "development" and learn a little more about our guidelines on reliable sources. I can see absolutely zero "legitimate news articles", nor can I find anything in a neutral tone. Almost every single source is silly puffery written for paid placement or press releases. The claim that press releases are vetted and fact-checked through the syndicated feeds is absolute nonsense. Most reputable published will clearly denote press reprints and include explicit disclaimers of editorial oversight or involvement. As such, these will never be considered reliable sources for any extraordinary claim, especially not those dealing with financial considerations and return claims. Buy hey, let's look through this crap:
  • disruptmagazine.com: this is one of the worst: it's a paid placement hub for blackhat seo that we're run across a million times before. the guest blogger only posts puffy adcopy across multiple sites. this is not a RS in any way.
  • www.buzzfeed.com/gywobyv/ngf-f3zpnytidb: This is a "community post" from an unknown author with a stolen template photo. no idea why you would this this is acceptable.
  • hindustantimes.com: This is a "Brand post" with an editorial disclaimer ("This content is distributed by Digpu News network. No HT journalist is involved in creation of this content.") On The "Digpu" site, this is clearly marked as a paid placement press release.
  • marketwatch.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • apnews.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • business-standard.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • theprint.in: exact same press release as above, including the same disclaimers.
  • aninews.in: exact same press release as above, including the same disclaimers.
  • ibtimes.sg: this is a depreciated source and cannot be used on Wikipedia at all, please see WP:IBTIMES. oddly enough, it's depreciated for the exact same reason many of the others are on this list: junk articles that fail to identify paid influences.
  • cyber.harvard.edu: This is pretty interesting. It's an open wiki that was left unmoderated and is now almost 100% pure spam - poke around there a bit. The main page of that wiki starts with "Whether it’s your first wedding anniversary or your 50th, your anniversary is a special day to tell your partner how much you love them" and is covered in spam links. This also comes across as pretty suspect behavior - why in the world would you have thought this was acceptable? How did you evaluate it?
  • canvas.ubc.ca: unpublished student blog post that sources press releases and paid placement junk. This is not, in any way, a peer-reviewed publication by that institution - it would get utterly trashed.
  • deccanchronicle.com: Sorry, the Deccan Chronicle is terrible; they fail to label adcopy all the time. You cannot look at me with a straight face and say "iconic Solomartel real estate fund" or "dubbed by many as America's most profitable publicly available real estate investment" is not complete drivel.
After re-reviewing the sources, I have to ask this: do you have a conflict of interest with this firm? It's very difficult to imagine that you've mis-read the veracity of those sources this poorly. Also, stop with the "vandalism" claims; this is clearly not that. Kuru (talk)
Sock votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi. Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The sources covering the company are legitimate news articles, I learned about this company through the news and it has been covered in a wide array of news outlets in the past 2 years, they are quite well known especially in India, only a minor part of the sources are press releases and this investment fund has been mentioned in a research paper from the University of British Columbia in Canada and many other references exist that demonstrate the notability of the company. Moreover, I have not seen a press release of theirs until now, I only did after seeing your request for deletion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simocre (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Simocre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's exciting news; please provide some of this "wide array" that meets our requiremsnts. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,After further consideration of the contents of this deletion request. I have attentively considered it and can relate to your concerns, I do however think that the nomination is not relevant for this particular page. In fact, out of all the references mentioned, 8/12, i.e 67% of them are not press releases but genuine articles in news releases such as Hindustan times (the second largest journal in India), Deccan Chronicles (another well known Indian news outlet), Ibtimes Singapore and many others none of which are press releases and almost all of those news outlets have wikipedia pages.
An article published by the university of British Columbia discussing the influence of the internet on the investment industry mentionned and thoroughly analyzed this company as well as its financial activities and it is that article which influenced my decision of creating the page for this company. This same financial article was featured on the website of the cybersecurity department of the university of Harvard. This is clear academic work which can be considered as legitimate.
Moreover, the only articles which are press releases, i.e 33% of the remaining sources have all been paid by parties other than Solomartel meaning that none of the references used for the creation of this wikipedia page have been paid by Solomartel. Those press releases have been paid by OCBC Bank and The PIF (Public investment fund), the Sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. These articles focus almost solely on OCBC and the PIF and barely discuss Solomartel, they only cover the invesmtent deal.
I also think that the fact that the company made deals with the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the Royal family of Qatar, the Bank of Baroda and OCBC bank (the second largest bank in southeast Asia) are all clear indicators of the notability of the company. I thus think that it would be appropriate to remove the mention for deletion and instead perform a page patrol of the page and adjust certain details (if can find ways of improving the page) before official publication.SUPERGTOR (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As outlined above; none of these sources are useful and your analysis is poor. If I had run across it first, I would have moved it to the draft space and asked for improvement. The editor who found this chose to move it into the deletion process, so here we are. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the sources that were previously present were from deprecated sources or were clearly marked as paid-for articles or "community contributor" pieces, which are clearly unacceptable. A quick search for suitable replacement sources didn't yield anything. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This company is a well known company out here in Punjab, they have been bhiring many programmers also, I heard they have been building lots of properties in India also, it is almost a part of popular culture at this point.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi). Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press releases are not independent sources. Also, a note for all the sockpuppets / 'new editors' voting keep - this is not a vote, if your arguments are not grounded in policy they will be ignored. There is no substitute for bringing real reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sock votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi. Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added one reference from India's best-known news journal EDtimes which has not yet been added, that one was clearly not paid just as the majority of these sources, the journal regularly covers all sorts of Entrepreneurs, artists and other innovators in India. Moreover, I do believe that a lot of the judgements made previously were incorrect. An Indian perspective is necessary in this case: for instance, Deccan Chronicle is one of India's main news outlets, it is in the top 10 English dailies in India, also they are locally known for not doing PR and screening their content very well compared to Times of India for instance. Here the article is clearly valid, a piece of PR is very easy to distinguish from authentic news and Deccan Chronicle does keep notices of advertisement if the content was paid. Also, I think that with time there will be more references to be used for this investment fund which I will not hesitate to add if I have time, I think it is important to remain calm and neutral with this matter. Murgh Krahi (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just come back after more than a year! Welcome back. Can I ask what drew you back to this discussion? Also, I must point out that EDTimes (which bills itself as a 'youth blog') isn't a reliable source, let alone 'India's best-known news journal. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Only a minor portion of the references are press releases, not all of them as said before and given that the Press releases represent a minor part of all references, it does not influence the reference count considerably. The Press releases are not paid by Solomartel and have a neutral perspective, I re-read it a few times to be sure of it, those can still be considered as valid references. Solomartel is indeed a notable company in India, the notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver5647 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Oliver5647 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, The fact that this investment fund signed an investment agreement with the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia shows the notability of the company. Additionally, it is important to remember that in order for company press releases to be accepted, they ask for bank statements as proof of a transaction and they least they do is verify that the publication request has been sent by an email address with the same domain as the companies mentioned in the news releases and verify the stories independently to avoid publishing defamatory statements meant to destroy a company's reputation. Media outlets even ask the participants to comment the reported event as they can still be sued afterwards. Let's take as an example the APnews press release, which was publish by a PR company named Newswire, here is what is written statement on the company's guidelines:
"If a release contains pertinent information that Newswire is unable to verify independently, we serve the right to refuse".
A Simple verification of their website yields this result, same for all other PR companies. The disclaimers stating that "they are not responsible for the content" are there to present the fact that the news outlet does not take responsibility over the views expressed by the organization or the individual which wrote the statement and if a reader is unhappy with the content, they cannot blame the news outlet. This does not mean that the media outlet publishes unverified information without any background checks, that would simply be absurd. And if a magazine, a news channel or any media outlet publishes totally false information, they can and are almost always sued afterwards. --Anjum Sharjeel (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the notability of this company is undisputed, they have earned the reputation they currently have. Many sources can indeed be removed, mostly because of duplicates which are just uneeded. That being said, most of the sources are good news articles and need to be kept. We cannot judge those articles on the basis of wild speculation and without any proof. For instance, is there any proof that the articles on disrupt are paid other than personal assumptions. Maybe some of you consider those sources as irrelevant due to personal preferences, religious or political beliefs but there is no solid ground to consider those numerous sources as "All paid PR", such comments are simply invalid. Such sayings cannot really be based on anything other than prejudice or paranoia towards those specific sources. Ibtimes is a well known journal and so is Deccan chornicle or Edtimes, a leading youth journal in India and these well known journals are currently in use on thousands of articles of our project. Disrupt magazine is a less reputable source indeed but still it can be part of the reference list, it is not in any way irrelevant to the subject. Unless proof is provided, we cannot reject a thesis...this is common sense I think.Techgadgets (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I notice multiple users removing the sources on this page constantly, given that the discussion for deletion is still ongoing, I would ask that the article be kept in its full current state for everybody to judge it or if you want to adjust a few sources, make sure to do so without vandalizing the entire article. I am under the impression that users who totally remove the content do so with the goal of influencing the discussion given that users cannot check the references and given that all users could have the same idea at the same time, I am suspecting that this may be a case of sockpuppetry. I do want to remind everyone that our goal is to edit and maintain wikipedia to its optimal state, not delete specific articles due to personal preference.Techgadgets (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Techgadgets:Yes, I am also starting to suspect that this is a case of sockpuppetry because it is very strange why a few people would all attack the same page at once. The behavioral patterns followed by many of them are the exact same; they just say that all sources are paid PR which is not the case and then vandalize the references. Also the aggression in communication is something that many users in this discussion share. This is all very strange, usually users are a lot kinder to one another and give a variety of arguments but here it looks like it is the same person behind different accounts or they are all friends defending a common cause. Also somebody started a sockpuppetry investigation against me which may also be a way of trying to scare me off from participating. Could you please start a sockpuppetry investigation for me ? I am still new to the project and do not know the project that well.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam sourced to paid for black hat SEO nonsense. There is no actual reliable coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 21:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia, given the sockpuppetry. Undisclosed paid-for spam and sockpuppetry should not be rewarded. MER-C 16:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are not independent of the subject Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 09:55, 25 December 2021 (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/Solomartel&oldid=1061983397"