Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officeyes.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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. I do find the last set of "keep" arguments to be strongest, so I would expect attempted near-future AFDs would likely continue in that vein (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Officeyes.com[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 16 Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text describes what this firm does, the references establish its existence and give an idea of its ambitions to be India's equivalent of Staples. Perhaps these can be regarded as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, but they seem to me to be more of the typical publicity associated with a start-up. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The Financial Times interview is a solid source. The passing reference in the other FT article has some value. The Entrepreneur Magazine coverage looks fine, but I'm really unable to tell if this is a reasonable RS or not. Same with Yourstory. I'm leaning toward yes on Entrepreneur Magazine and no on YS as reliable sources. YS looks likely to be a "pay for story" mill, at least in part. So topic seems to meet WP:N, if just barely. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Entrepreneur Magazine article, this is the Indian edition of US business magazine Entrepreneur (magazine) with approx 600k monthly circulation Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

You are meaning the Economic Times rather than the Financial Times I think? I agree that is the strongest of the bunch. Yourstory cannot be a WP:RS - their front page says "YourStory Pages is a user-editable database of all things related to the Indian startup ecosystem. As with Wikipedia, everything is editable by you! Feel free to add and remove companies, apps and their details." AllyD (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Yourstory.in you have cited the tagline of "YSPages" pages.yourstory.in. This is a side project of Yourstory.in and functions as a Wikipedia-ish service focusing on Indian startups, as you point out. However, this is not to be confused with Yourstory.in, the source of the cited coverage. This is a tech-focused news website, founded in 2006 by an Indian tech journalist Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

Delete founded just last year and still a start-up. Could be a notable company someday, but nothing in the article or elsewhere suggests that it's notable right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is subjective I think. Where does it say in Wikipedia's guidelines that a 1 year old company can not be notable? Significant writeups in several mainline news sources indicates notability, I feel. Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
Delete, while some sources do exist, I don't think that they go into the depth required by WP:ORG. At the moment they're a startup with some ambitious expansion plans and obviously a decent PR department. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Could you explain what problem you see with the sources? The sources appear to target a national (or larger) audiance, which seems to be what WP:ORG is looking for. The interview is pretty darn in depth, seeming to be plenty to write an article about. I'm unclear what part of WP:ORG you don't feel is met. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN business -- Y not? 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, please read WP:JNN. I'm the first to admit the sources aren't great. But they do seem to (easily) clear the bar of WP:N and there is enough content actually write a decent (if short) article. (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is subjective. I'm looking at the same sources, and all I see is the sort of routine coverage I'd expect from any new company with a half-competent marketing person. That sort of routine coverage doesn't usually count for much in terms of notability, which is why we don't usually have separate articles for individual games of professional sports even though they do have sources. In the end it's up to the closer to decide, but I simply don't agree that they're significant, sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, don't be sorry. It's not like I'm going to be sad if this is deleted. That said, WP:N doesn't have restriction on routine sources. The agreement we've more-or-less come to is that things are notable if they are covered by reliable independent sources in non-trivial ways. And an article entirely on the subject is non-trivial the way WP:N reads. If people want to !vote to delete something because they don't like it, or think WP:N should say something different, that's fine. But WP:JNN is a pretty reasonable essay last I checked. And if WP:CORP can override WP:N is still a matter of debate. I generally assume it provides some additional comments on what makes for notable sources, but is just some additional specialized text, not something that can, or should, override our general guidelines other than in exceptional cases. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC) (note, this reply came after the relist). Hobit (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice.
Relist rationale:I would like to see responses to Hobit's posts from 24 May. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit's points are reasonable. The also may be some western bias at play. However, currently operating companies are expected to meet a higher standard, specifically WP:CORP. I normally expect possibly promotional articles to have incoming links from other articles. Officeyes has only one mainspace mention, at Rocket Internet, and it is not very impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I fail to see the relevance of this criterion. It may just mean the editor is sufficiently experienced at promotional writing for WP to put them in; the clever promotional writers know to put in a reasonable bit not excessive number of links so their article gives the impression of being integrated with encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I think it is a useful criterion to use on articles right on the edge of deletion. It the article relevant to any other article? If it is, I will go for "keep", with some thought to a merge. The founders Arvind Sivdas and Siddharth Nambiar appear to be non-Wikipedia-notable, and the lede's statement of importance "It specializes in selling products that are required by businesses and organisations" is very weak. I don't think on on a limb considering this article to be near the edge of WP:CORP.
Regarding your comments below, my sense is that this is too much a promotional article or a directory style article that would see all trading companies listed on Wikipedia. I prefer to ignore "actual importance" as a bad road to take, preferring to delight in the obscure. I prefer the GNG as a measure of notice and of whether there are sources to support content, and yes, the sources read like sponsored articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some additional sources to meet GNG. [1][2][3]. Two of the three are detailed interviews, but non-English sources are likely and probably best to deal with this business. It needs work, but deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the two somewhat-acceptable sources (the second Economic Times source is a passing mention) are industry publications, and the company is discussed as a startup. Miniapolis 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets what I consider the most critical criterion, of having good sources to show it's the major national company in a major field. (If notability has any common-sense meaning, such firms are notable ). If you don't go by common sense, and the actual importance, of the subject, and prefer to go by the GNG: the sources are tinged by PR, as most sources for articles on companies are, but they're reasonable journalistic articles, not blatant PR, giving fairly sensible coverage--my experience is that for sources like this we can make a case to either keep or reject them, depending on whether it seems reasonable that we should keep or reject the article. The GNG look rational, but it isn't, because for all non-obvious cases it's how one interprets the requirements of being substantial and independent-and that's a matter of nuance. As "gold standards" go, that's half gold and half alloy. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I agree that deletion isn't cleanup. If additional sources are there, insert them and clean up the article Dusti^*poke* 17:30, 16 June 2013 (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.