Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination)

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. From the discussion here, it seems that it might be possible to write an article that complies with our policies and guidelines and would thus merit a standalone article in mainspace. However, there is a consensus that this version is not that with some citing a lack of notability while others cite the documented issues around UPE/COI. In the end there is a consensus that there are valid reasons per WP:DELPOL to delete this article at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moglix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Moglix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted multiple times. Suspected case of Covert advertising. Advertisement of the company. Major references are either Press Releases or announcements, WP:MILL. I would also like to ping Celestina007 and DGG who recently declined the article. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Speedy Delete as G4 essentially an unimproved version of previously deleted article. Fails WP:NCORP--refs are mostly notices, awards are insubstantial.I should have salted it the last time around. Other user contribution of User:Hayema K need to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt and Delete Considering it's been deleted multiple times, looks like we need some yummy SALT. Per previous discussions the delete is self-evident at this point. If someone does go and set this up for speedy delete I would make a note to recommend salting as well. --Tautomers(T C) 07:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The company itself appears to pass WP:GNG, as it has received coverage from multiple independent RS. The business, which is valued at over $1 billion, is clearly WP:GNG-notable in light of the significant coverage by multiple RS. However, the current article reads strongly like an advertisement. I'd recommend we draftify the article to allow for improvements to be made and for the advertorial content to be removed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I beg to differ here - I don't believe it qualifies for WP:G4. The 2nd discussion took place around 4 years ago and the topic has since received an abundance of significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG with ease. Moglix is the largest e-commerce company for industrial goods in India. It has received extensive and substantial coverage in major national newspapers over an extended period of time, such as Forbes, INC42, Business standard, BW, Financial express, Forbes, BS, and Livemint and google news search shows 5,250 hits. It may need copy edit to meet WP standards rather than deletion. I have made some substantial changes to the page though and edited out promo and excessive refs concerning funding.
Also pinging participants Cunard, David in DC, and CNMall41 of the last discussion who may want to give their opinions here as well.Hayema K (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hayema K:, as an aside, most people do not just come to Wikipedia as a volunteer and start to create articles on business unless they have a [{WP:COI]] or are WP:PAID. I would strongly suggest that you disclose any affiliation you have with this company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo pings just for the keep !voters then. The other participants: @K.e.coffman, Xxanthippe, and Dennis Brown: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate advertising and anything that smells of WP:COI. However, looking at this strictly from a notability standpoint, there are references out there that meet WP:ORGCRIT. If you take away all the brief mentions and funding announcements, there are staff written pieces (not contributor pieces) in Forbes 1, 2, and Entrepreneur. Was also featured on CNBC. Also, despite the normal funding announcements that you may see in references such as TechCrunch, the latest valuation was covered by Business Insder and Economic Times which don't always practice churnalism as TechCrunch does. If editors see fit in deleting this for other reasons, so be it, but I cannot see how WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything meeting ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After the !vote by JBchrch, I looked closer at WP:TNT. While it is not a policy or guideline, it does provide a layout for what the community consensus on these type of issues are. Despite it being a notable topic (IMHO), deleting something that has a history of advocacy would be appropriate in this situation. I would love to see something like this cemented in policy but that is not really discussion for an AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After removing the promotional part by CNMall41, the article looks like clean and as per available references it passes WP:GNG. 2401:4900:5AAB:DA6D:FD4E:AD2B:510:FFB (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC) — 2401:4900:5AAB:DA6D:FD4E:AD2B:510:FFB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Draftify for reasons above, it seems it may be notable, but its clearly got issues with tone and impartially.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As bad of a taste as the original piece left in my mouth (and this entire process with the canvassing). I have to grudgingly concede that this easily passes WP:GNG. Additionally, the excellent efforts of CNMall41 in stubbing it have left only objective truth. There are no concerns left with the article in it's current state. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Are we encouraging conflict of interest editing by voting to retain an article that has all COI tale signs? I know focus on content and whatnot but if this article was moved To Draftspace why wasn’t AFC allowed to play out? Especially since there is indeed a stench of possible COI? I’m lost on this one. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007:, @Miniapolis:, I do a lot of reviewing at AfC so it would be pointless to send it back. I am one that would likely approve it if I saw it. It either needs to be deleted or kept as it would be a waste or time to draftify. It sucks as the topic is notable despite being hammered by COI. My vote is strictly on notability and kind of puts me between a rock and a hard place. I'd love to not reward a COI editor, but it also takes away from our credibility by throwing out a notable topic just to prove a point to these people. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/Draftify — Imho, the article should be moved to Draftspace and passed through AFC where an uninvolved editor with AFC pseudo rights would handle this, if this is considered moot then please the article should be deleted. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt — Following JBchrch's rationale both here and in ANI, I cant in good faith !vote in favor to even drafitify the article (or any article that has been created by a possible covert upe editor) what sort of hypocrisy on my part would that be? what sort of message am I leaving for posterity? This should]WP:TNT'ed and an editor without a COI recreate this. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Celestina007. Miniapolis 23:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC) After reading CNMall41's comment above and looking more closely at the sources, Rahul Garg may be notable but the company (IMO) is not. Delete Miniapolis 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and salt per Dennis Brown below, so we're not back here yet again. Miniapolis 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Moglix was covered in an international source, Japan's The Nikkei, in 2017. Moglix became a unicorn company in 2021 which led to profiles in Forbes India and The Economic Times, which is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after The Wall Street Journal.

    1. Marandi, Rosemary (2017-07-12). "Startup Moglix bets on growth spurred by India's GST". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Headquartered in Singapore, Moglix was founded in August 2015. It serves over 50,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in India, and over 200 major manufacturers in India, China, and other parts of Asia. Clients include GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Havells India, India Forge, Kirloskar Group, Lumax Industries, and some Tata Group companies. Moglix platforms enable companies and individuals to place bulk purchase orders and fulfill deliveries with the help of logistics partners. It provides cloud-based software as a service (SAAS) that third parties are able to make available to their clients for convenience and supply chain efficiencies."

    2. Balachandran, Manu (2021-06-07). "Moglix: How Rahul Garg built an unexpected unicorn". Forbes India. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Amongst them is six-year-old Moglix, a rather unlikely unicorn amongst others such as messaging bots startup Gupshup, social commerce startup Meesho, fintech startup Cred, and online investment platform Groww. Moglix, started by Rahul Garg is 2015, is a Noida-based industrial business-to-business marketplace in India, that is essentially an e-commerce platform for industrial tools and equipment, used largely by businesses. Moglix, helps over 500,000 small, and medium-sized businesses and some 3,000 manufacturing plants across India, Singapore, the UK, and the UAE in their procurement for industrial goods."

    3. Hariharan, Sindhu (2021-05-17). "Moglix raises $120 million at over $1 billion valuation". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Moglix provides its solutions to over five lakh SMEs and 3,000 manufacturing plants across India, Singapore, the UK and the UAE. Several manufacturing majors such as Hero MotoCorp, Vedanta, Tata Steel, Unilever and PSUs such as Air India and NTPC procure indirect material through the Moglix platform. Moglix has a supply chain network of over 16,000 suppliers, over 35 warehouses and logistics infrastructure."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding promotional content: Thank you, CNMall41 (talk · contribs), for removing the promotional content.

    Regarding canvassing: Canvassing happened when only "keep" editors were pinged. This has been remedied by the pinging of the "delete" editors. I am removing the "canvassing" tag placed next to CNMall41's comment. If the canvassing tag is to be restored to CNMall41's comment, then it should also be added to the "delete" editors who were pinged and who have commented.

    Cunard (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that any of these sources meet the criteria of WP:SIRS, according to which posts that are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials are not considered independent, an example being a Profile in Forbes. What I'm reading is, at best, reporting that simply parrots the company's the company's marketing claims. JBchrch talk 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: Would you be kind enough to explain in detail how the refs above are sponsored ones? did you check out the refs above Cunard's comment and most importantly did you do an online search? some of the best sources about the company i have provided in my comment above. google search shows 5,860 hits. I understand the article was once deleted as a result of discussion but it has gained a whole host of significant coverage on independent sources since 2017. last time the page was not even deleted on the grounds of notability but because of G11. its the largest company in india that sells industrial products and meets the notability criteria. All information in the article are factual and not promotional or not that promotional that it should be tossed aside. There were plenty of refs in the article alone which got deleted as a result of page clean up by CNMall41. thank you.Hayema K (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayema K: I have expressed no view on the general notability of this company. However, if this company is truly notable, then some volunteer editors will propose a neutral and encyclopedic article at some point (if necessary through the WP:SALT process) instead of the continuous out-of-process creation by COI editors. As of signature time, the only information about the company in the article is the professional history of its founder, the fact that it has partners in several countries and funding/valuation information: it's pretty much a pitch. And, as I have already written below, this is despite having been reworked by competent editors. What this article needs is a complete rewrite by neutral, volunteer editors, which is precisely why a WP:TNT deletion is needed. JBchrch talk 17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and salt. Article still reads like a promo piece with pretty much 0 encyclopedic value, despite being only 3k long and having been reworked by competent editors. This goes to show that it is beyond saving. Salting has become necessary: sub-par versions of this article keep being recreated by SPAs and each iteration has required a lot of administrative work by good-faith editors. Salting would prevent the inevitable waste of time that would follow a 4th re-creation of the article. JBchrch talk 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that TNT had a provision for undisclosed paid editing or advocacy until I looked closer ("Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up"). As such, it would give us a policy based reason to get rid of an otherwise notable page. Changing my !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt per DGG. I closed the last AFD discussion, which went to DRV and the delete close was endorsed, so this has already been scrutinized plenty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting an article on a clearly notable subject based on a mere hunch that it might've been created by a COI editor goes against the very foundation of Wikipedia and it saddens me that it's what's most likely to end up happening yet again. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point, based on the admission of the page creator, it is safe to say this meets speedy deletion. Per WP:TNT, "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content." The history and current failure to disclose meets the definition of "excessive cases of advocacy" in my opinion. Get rid of it so no more of our time is wasted on this paid advocacy. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard may possibly have shown that sources exist from which an acceptable article could be written, tho I remain uncertain about the truly independent non-promotional nature of some or all of them. but he has not shown that this is an acceptable article. Lack of notability may be the most common reason for deleting an article at AFD, but it's not even the most important--the encyclopedia can survive with one borderline notable article more. It could not survive in any useful way if it became a vehicle for advertising or a directory, for it would be no better than the Googles, and they do well enough without us volunteers. Nor would it survive under continuing assault by undeclared paid editors and puppets, for then we volunteers would be spending most our time here in removing them--and, as the need for this discussion shows, we're getting perilously close to it. If, as some seem to advocate, we accept material like this, written for motives such as this by editors such as this, why are we even here? DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally be with Cunard on this one and give a lot of leeway to editors with a COI. However, keeping TNT in mind, I think this case qualifies and we should WP:IAR in lack of one existing for deletion based on COI or PAID. As recommended above, I would suggest we work on getting something in policy to make these cases easier and we don't have to spend so much time on them. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 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/Moglix_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1032852320"