Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TravelKhana (2nd nomination)

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TravelKhana[edit]

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

First nominated over 2 months ago by Light2021 and recently PRODed by DGG and the mistake with the first AfD was that no one actually cared to notice the sources themselves were listed as "paid advertising by the company" or "Information supplied by the company", instantly making the sources unsuitable for our policies since they're not independent, regardless of whatever or whoever, and even examining the sources that were offered at the 1st AfD find this exactly. Even WP:CORPDEPTH itself states: "Sources must not be trivial about its company activities, finances or other triviality or be published in similar sources" and that fits here, and that's even a guideline, it becomes thicker when we apply WP:NOT which then itself states "Wikipedia is not a business webhost for simple company information, activities and other contents". We cannot be misused to blatantly host such companies for their own gains simply because their PR was republished. FWIW, my own searches still found nothing but: Company financials published and republished by the company itself, company interviews, company listings, company mentions and other triviality. Hence, we never actually had substance, and it's worse when we know for a fact, and our recent AfDs show it, that these publications willingly and heavily republish the company PR at their own will. Note that one of the comments in the 1st AfD was from a now-banned advertising account, so that's something else to consider in how this article is used. Now, the other thing to consider is the fact this was nominated in October with the suggestions of "Keep and improve" yet no improvements were made, a common sign in our policies that it can't be improved hence our policies support deletion. Note, also carefully examining the history shows that over half-doze India-based accounts and IPs have started contributing, including adding its own company materials, a common sign enough. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I strongly doubt notability; the sources are indeed essentially press releases or self-published. In any case the article is an advertisement, intend to make use of w Wikipedia as an additional source of PR for the company. Either reason alone is a sound basis for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regard of the imputed intent let me make clear that although I re-created this article after speedy deletion, and upheld it at the previous AfD, I have no contact with this company and no form of interest in it or external knowledge of it. I am basing my !vote solely on repeated coverage in national newspapers as listed in the first AfD, and if such coverage is now deemed to be merely "press releases or self-published ... republishing the company's PR", are we singling out the national press of India as incapable of editorial control, or are we now denying the relevance for notability of any coverage of commercial firms in any national newspaper anywhere? If national newspapers no longer count as independent reliable sources when assessing notability, I think we should all be told: Noyster (talk), 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article which ends with a bold italic tagline saying "Travelkhana tracks trains to ensure that meals are delivered at the right time and the right seat" is not the work of an editorially sound process. That's not because it's from India, it's because obvious PR is obvious. --joe decker ^talk 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO. For example, the article states that the company "claims to have served meals to 383,921 train passengers". The fact that the article replicates company claims suggests that it's both too soon for the subject to have an article and that the article existence serves to promote the business: i.e. there's no independent info on it, and this material can equally be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, and while we can debate whether a few of Noyster's references are lightly-warmed over PR pieces, I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH. --joe decker ^talk 02:17, 19 January 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.