Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bewakoof.com

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bewakoof.com

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

Sole author was a clear paid advertiser, given their one focus in starting heavily PR-informed articles, all of which shared the consistency, including in the listed paid press sources, something that is instantly deleted by our long-held policies which make no compromises, and there's no exceptions here; all sources are clear paid press, announcements, notices, company-hosted columns, etc. instantly unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH which maintains such sources are still not independent, wherever or whoever published. Unsurprising, all sources found are clearly labeled to the company's own contributions and authorship, complete with mirrored consistency, showing only the company is responsible for its own PR attention. Because our policies have no exceptions to company-serviced profiles, there's nothing to actually genuinely improve. Given there's also clear uses of multiple accounts instantly violates WP:Sockpuppetry, especially in considerations of using accounts to mass advertise, given No Advertising was among the first policies WP set. Any user who knowingly violates WP:Paid, which has legal considerations, is immediately barred from Wikipedia given the WMF Legal itself confirms it's a non-negotiable policy and, to emphasize the blatancy, see the sources: 1-10 are all clearly labeled to the company's own authorship, 3 is a funding announcement, and while any search such as this and here supposedly found news, they too are clearly labeled as company-sponsored profiles, something of which is showing the company is only responsible for its own advertising, given the dates all consistently maintain a timed schedule. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (additional comment post DGG's comments. Lourdes 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~ Economic TImes, Financial Express, Hindu Business Line and others are not paid press sources. They are in-depth news reports from highly credible news organizations, which make the company qualify on WP:ORG. Also, the company has been covered by noted authors like Rashmi Bansal in her book Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, which documents quite deeply the rise of this website. Lourdes 06:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how can it be independently significant if all of them are clear business announcements, something that WP:CORPDEPTH initially notes of unacceptable, because it's still where the company talks about itself, wherever published. The second one itself has self-supported claims as is the third, all maintaining the mirrored consistency. Paid advertising is a non-negotiable basis for removal. SwisterTwister talk 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's been discussion by knowledgeable Indian editors here how bylined news stories in many major Indian dailies or news websites can be essentially advertorial, even if not identified as such. It's apparently an issue. I'm not weighing in on this case or the sources cited above, but caution must be taken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article is purely promotional. Company does not seem to be notable. In order to establish notability references need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently there are 10 references in the article and none do anything to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. The book mentioned above book, Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, doesn't seem to help either, as the section is about Prabhkiran Singh and Siddharth Munot, founders of the company and the coverage about Bewakoof.com is mostly information provided by Singh and Munot. CBS527^Talk 05:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references are the usual PR. This can be told both by looking at the nature of the sources, and by actually reading the material. As a general rule, an article created that includes direct press releases indicates either that the article does not know our standards )which can be true of a good faith editor) or is determined to ignore them by making the list sound impressive (which usually indicates a paid promotional editor). The ed. of this article has written several other articles all using the same inadequate referencing methods; however likely, this still doesn't prove them a paid promotional editor--it might just be a persistent beginner who has not yet learned, and is unlikely to learn until the articles get deleted, The way to decide if the material in Indian news sources are advertorials, is to read them. They tend to be exactly what would be used for a press release. It is possible that this is the accepted standard of journalism there--it certainly seems a very common characteristic. Acceptable as those news sources may think it for their own standards,it doesn't meet ours. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are most likely redressed PR. For example, this one although in Economic Times, is actually in the "Small biz / Startups" section. The source btw consists of largely the company talking about itself which wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. The content of the source such as "Bewakoof.com's latest product category is specifically tailored to cater to this particular consumer base, who wants its fashion solutions to be stylish yet affordable" and "With a diverse range of colours, design options and prints, Bewakoof.com is also planning to add chic denims and other casual wear options in the near future to its superb array of fashion solutions." is marketing speak. The other sources are of a similar type and are not useful for notability. I am also concerned about the possible COI/Paid editing by the creator, see Special:Contributions/Pritesh496. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 14 March 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.