Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela

Google Tech Mela

Google Tech Mela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a promotional article on a single event and is titled inaccurately. The event was supported by Google but it was not "Google Tech Mela" as this article claims. This single event received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:EVENT. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability... Saqib (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable. Satisfies GNG. The article title is irrelevant because the page can be moved to the correct name. If the article contains some promotional language, this can be fixed by editing: WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC) No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@James500: I agree the page can be safely renamed, but please do not ignore the fact that many references cited on this page are not even considered RS. Seemingly the event passes GNG but If you scrutinize the sources closely, you will found most of them are press release sites who copy each other (for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). And then some of the material is backed up by RS but is not relevant such as "The trend of getting online and using ..... Pakistan half among them are present on Mobile." Similarly, "Entire Grand Diwali Mela" section is irrelevant in this article, in my opinion. Coverage about the event in the Pakistani RS (such as Dawn, Nation, The News and Daily Pakistan) are published pre-event and are merely press releases if you look at them closely. For example, all the coverage about this event in Dawn is sponsored and paid. See the bylines [9], [10], [11], [12]. The same can be true for press coverage in other Pakistani RS. If indeed this had been a major event, Dawn would had definitely ran a couple of unpaid news stories but they did not. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib:, There is sufficient references in it to be keept, and I wonder how Grand Diwali Mela is irrevalent. Jogi 007 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No sufficient references available. See my above statement. Under the section, you wrote "Grand Diwali Mela in India which was like Tech Mela" however the cited source does not say anything like that which means you have added OR to article, like you've done in the past. --Saqib (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In view of what you have said, I will strike my comment for the time being and re-examine the sources more closely if I have time. James500 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, There are sufficient references and if some one thinks its a promotional then edit that promotional content please, The Google Tech Mela is titled and it can be verified in the references. Jogi 007 21:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

First thing first, this is non-notable. Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. Can you provide here a single RS which verifies the name of this event "Google Tech Mela" as you claims? --Saqib (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There are references you may go through, and here are ref Tech Mela,Tech Mela , [13] in which Tech Mela is clearly written.Jogi 007 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The above provided sources have a poor reputation for facts checking, and has no editorial oversight.. They copy each other and are more like news aggregator sites so I would count them as RS. Daily Pakistan source is okay, but the piece is a pre-event press release. And by the way, this is a Google-supported event. Your own provided sources fails to verify your claim. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, This article has good coverage and references. Arif80s (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please give reasonable justification to keep this page. Where is so called good coverage and references? --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

For notability, please see the comment of Mr. James500 Arif80s (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, @James500: has struck down his support. --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep There is no problem with the referencing. If the article requires improvement, that can be achieved through editing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@And Adoil Descended: More than half of cited references are not even reliable while many others are paid press releases. --Saqib (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Saqib, You have any proof of paid press releases? If yes please share with us. Arif80s (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See the bylines [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Saqib (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You showed only 4 paid press releases out of 25 references. What do think about other references of this article? Arif80s (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

See my above comments. Half of the sources are not reliable enough. The rest are merely press releases and pre-event announcements and they fails WP:ORGIND because the information in those press release stories are announcement by the organisers. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear you had pointed out only 4 press releases out of 25 references. Wait for decision of Admins. Arif80s (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the closing admin should take into account the fact that this AfD, along with two other (Amb Jogi and Iqbal Jogi) are very much convassed and contains some arguments without arguments. In-fact most of the users who chimed in never participated in AfDs before. On a similar note, a user has requested speedy deletion of the page under G11. --Saqib (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I took down the G11 tag, as it is clearly inappropriate and serves no purpose except to circumvent an on-going discussion which is clearly pointing to the preservation of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@And Adoil Descended: Perhaps your judgement was wrong and thus your NPR has been removed. Merely voting !keep is not enough to rescue AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This is not a google event, so the name is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and this article is precisely that: unambiguous promotion. I also found the sources (even though they are all from well known media outlets (Daily Pakistan,The News International,The Express Tribune,Boy Genius Report,[Zee News]] and The Nation (Pakistan)) suspiciously similar. With the exception of the Tribune, they're virtually identical, and there is no reason to cite them all other than to give the impression that the event has received much attention in the press. I suspect their all minor rewrites from release by a news agency, probably INP (inp.net.pk). That's not a lot of independent reporting, that's one piece that got republished a number of times. Given the state of the media, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was paid for. It certainly reads that way. Vexations (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)