Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe

ReGlobe

ReGlobe (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)

Highly promotional article, the sources are essentially press releases/ DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a private start-up launched two years ago which pretty comprehensively fails WP:ORG. Note that while the article claims it was started in 2012, their own website says that it was launched in 2013. [1] Having examined the sources, I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based. The article is clearly written to drum up business. Even if kept, 80% of it would need to be removed. Although this it is not in itself a reason to delete, I note that this has all the earmarks of a "paid for" article—springing fully formed from a brand new editor as their first edit, complete with perfectly formatted infobox and "references". Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The article could use more content, but checking the references I find: #1 a substantial article #2 dead link #3 a promotional site (you write your own content) #4 mention #5 mention #6 article about getting significant VC funding #7 substantial article (local biz journal, AFAIK) #8&#9 no longer link to relevant article. I would say that #1, 6 & 7 are enough to establish notability. The article does need to be updated. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously promotional/paid for article. #6 is borderline WP:ROUTINE, #7's use of bold blinded me in addition to being a very promotional article from a very small news organization whose website looks like this. #1 is the only reliable significant coverage of this business, but the article cannot rest on the back of that single source and LaMona has already ruled out the remaining sources. This Wikipedia article was clearly written with the intention of promoting the company and needs a good bit of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe I missed something, but I do not see why a "promotional" article needs deleted if it is notable. Anything can be stripped down to a few basic statements establishing notability. While some of the coverage looks routine, there are references out there such as this [2] that look like they would support notability. Not sure how to vote yet, but wanted to point out that promotion shouldn't be a reason for deletion when we could simply cut out the majority of the article which is promotional.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@TTTommy111: No, you didn't miss anything. You're 100 percent right. Articles that are promotional should be tagged promo, but some editors ignore that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - sufficient coverage including recent deal with Amazon [3], covered here —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: only sources that I could find are just deals relating to the company, which does not contribute to WP:CORP notability. Esquivalience ^t 14:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There are articles about the company itself [4], [5], [6] as well as additional coverage of its VC funding [7], [8] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Every one of those "articles" is a press release from the company (or the VC form funding it) or is quite explicitly based on one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore Which press releases are the profile ones from, specifically? Why does this one and this one have conversational style quotes that appear nowhere else? —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The first one is from indianweb2.com, a blog where start-ups can publicize themselves. See their "about us" and also scroll to the bottom of the "article" and observe the author's blurb: "A graduate working as a mechanical engineer, Vinay loves to talk and learn about everyone's story and then pen it down. In case you wish to get yours done, shoot a message to him at..." The second one from youstory.com is more of the same. See their "about us": "India’s no.1 media platform for entrepreneurs [... At YourStory, we have a singular passion – to tell the world your story and to enable your story!" There are loads of sites like this which exist to provide publicity platforms for start-ups and generate faux "media stories" for them. Coverage in such sources does not indicate genuine notability. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)