|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|A deletion review for Spice Digital was concluded on 2009 March 13. The result of the discussion was closure endorsed.|
- 1 Notability
- 2 I have already discussed this article with the admin.
- 3 Conflict of Interest
- 4 Restored Tags
- 5 Is this the outcome of being honest?
- 6 Replacement tags
- 7 Removal of some portions
- 8 Inconsistent edits
- 9 Reworked
- 10 Deletion
- 11 Comment on deletion process
- 12 Opinion
- 13 In support of merit
- 14 Discussion
- 15 Thank You
- 16 Removal of list of 'services'
- 17 Restoration of Services and Links
- 18 Contested deletion
- 19 Contested deletion
- 20 Tone of article
I fail to understand why this page should be deleted. I have already spent a lot of time discussing it with different administrators. I will once again reiterate that Cellebrum as a company belongs to the same domain as OnMobile and Hungama (two India-based companies that have articles on Wikipedia and is a leader in this space in India. If these companies can have presence on Wikipedia, then why not Cellebrum? Are these not double standards. Is there something more to it than meets the eye? Isn't it clear enough: We have three companies, belonging to the same domain, and you choose to post a notice on the page belonging to the company that is the leader in the domain in India! Wikipedia is an open platform and it would be in fairness of things for you to address these queries. As far as the promotional status of this page goes, as advised earlier on, I have modelled this page on the OnMobile page. It gives information about the company in an unbiased manner. I have backed up the info with references, links, etc. If more changes are required, then kindly let me know. Please let us be rational here. And could anyone tell me how many admins do I have to address to write an article on Wikipedia? Or is it just that wikipedia is turning into a tool catering to the whims and fancies of a few individuals? I for one would like to beleive that this is not the case.
NOTE re. above, an anonymous user removed the company names from the above post by Kumar Machann, I have undone their edit. -- 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Company names removed: Company names not relevant anymore.
About Notability: This company is notable because it is a leader in a relatively new high-technology domain, Mobile VAS, in India.
If that is so, then prove it. Give some references saying such. If you can't, then according to Wikipedia policy it is not notable. That's the definition of "notable" here:verifiable notability. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- responseCellebrum is a market leader in terms of revenue in the India market. This is true. I am giving one source here  and I am looking for others. However, you will appreciate that Mobile VAS is still a nascent domain and I am not very sure whether the domain statistics are widely available. I would like to point out that the statement has already been removed from the article (I have not edited the page since Chzz advised me against it in the below post). Also, in the overall interest of the Wikipedia movement, I would like to point out that the leadership claims on a number of pages here remain unverified. In many instances, these claims have been made by entities that are publicly listed. I hope you understand the significance of that.
I have already discussed this article with the admin.
I have earlier discussed this article with the admin (Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_my_sub-page). Kindly let me know if you need any changes to be made.
Conflict of Interest
I have already explained my position on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_my_sub-page). I am not here to hide facts or deal out falsehoods. I am new to Wikipedia and as advised I have done the necessary remodelling/ rewriting of the article. I have taken care to see that this article simply conveys information on the company, without being judgemental. I have backed up the info with necessary references to independent sources, wherever required. If you feel that it still needs some changes. kindly let me know.
- Here lies the problem. You are affiliated with this organization and as such are not in a position to provide neutral, unbiased information to this wiki about this org. You should REFRAIN from editing this article, although you certainly could make comments or suggestions on the discussion page and allow a neutral, unbiased editor make the actual changes. By continuing your editing, you will be viewed as simply another WP:SPA intent upon promoting your organization.
Thank you for your speedy response. At the outset it may appear so, but whether I am in a position to provide neutral information is a matter of debate. I have styled the information on this page on pages of similar companies, taking care to maintain neutrality. You are certainly more experienced in this, and I would be thankful if you could remove the anomalies.
Sorry, I was wrong in my observation on removal of this particular page. It has never been removed, and as explained by RHaworth, it was just that it was not visible through search.
- If potential for conflict of interest exists, it certainly is not manifested in this article. As an editor experienced with corporate articles, I can say that the article is written like any other. And, the editor seems to sincerely avoid the conflict of interest. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Restored tags to this article because they were removed by an anon WP:SPA user whose sole edits have been this article or placing links to this organization on other articles. Calltech (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this the outcome of being honest?
Could you kindly let me know where am I going wrong? I am not editing this article anymore, as advised. Two admins have edited it already. The first admin finds it good to go and the second admin finds that it does not have any conflict of interest (Kindly refer to the entry by Mr Accountable above).I have researched some of the other company specific articles on Wikipedia, and some of them indeed are balatant advertisements for the companies. And still these are there? If you can point out any one thing that is judgemental in this article, I will gladly remove it on my own. Could you please answer my queries? Or am I paying the price for being honest?
About Notability: This company is notable because it is a leader in the Mobile VAS domain in India.
I don't think notability nor assertion of notability are much of an issue with this article/topic; I think the issue is a minor copyedit which would trim a little inadvertent and unwanted mild spamlike flavor coming due to inexperience with wikipedia writing standards, the article is sincerely presented and is a realistically acceptable short corporate article. The tag doesn't make much sense as applied, is my opinion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Removal of some portions
I have just removed some portions of this article, and explained my reasoning in my comments. I am concerned that the article might be misrepresenting unsubstantiated claims as facts. I have also added FACT tags for other claims that are unreferenced. If these cannot be referenced by reliable sources, they will also be removed.
--03:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Chzz..your inconsistent, seemingly motivated approach while editing this article is amusing.If you take a look at the history of the edits, I seriously think you ought to be reported.
I spend some time reworking the article. Nothing spectacular, but still. Added some refs, internal links. Brought a little more structure to the article. Have a look. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it make sense to desist from raising issue just for the sake of it and if at all one ought to be sure of the relevance of such details in the context of A Company of the size of Cellebrum in scale and operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment on deletion process
I have noticed the numerous edits. The problem seems to lie with the portion of text that has been removed.I don't find any other problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You do understand that we are not stupid? If anybody starts messing things up more than acceptable, we'll protect the article from those edits (and that's if we're in a good mood at the moment). Debresser (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have watched the emergence of Mobile VAS technologies over the past few years. There is no doubting the fact that Cellebrum has made rapid progress in this field over the past few years. As has been said before, I think the company is notable. After going through some of the pages devoted to other privately held technology companies on Wikipedia, I feel that the issue here revolves around the kind of information that should be provided about a company in an encyclopedia. In trying to achieve objectivity while giving information about a company, it is important that the page is edited by admins who have at least some exposure to the technology, and if that is not possible, then I guess people who are familiar with corporate environment should have a say in this process. What is important is that only significant information, within the context of the business environment, is given out.
Kanwal Deep Singh.
I guess editors (me included) just got fed up with anonymous editors (possible connected to the company) trying to influence (I do not mean "censorize") the article. So now all they get is even less: nothing. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
We shall see what due process and consensus decide. --14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Spice Digital. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
In support of merit
With reference to the above post by Debresser and Chzz. I think you are missing the point here when you talk about anonymous editors. Isn't Wikipedia about collaboration and openness? You are as much of an anon to me as I am to you. And I would not like to assume anything about your affiliations. For that matter, please let us not assume anything about anybody. What we need to do here is to treat things on merit. Whether a post is made by an anon or anyone else, I think one should be able to treat information strictly on merit. Let us kindly desist from statements such as "anons get nothing". By making such statements, you are harming the very spirit of Wikipedia. Yes, let us build up a consensus, and also refer to views of earlier editors (RHaworth, Mr Accountable). And, let us be open. Whatever issues you have with this article, kindly bring them out in the open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that I have assumed nothing as to you personally since you have never edited this article (at least not using this IP). As to your main point. Consensus seems to be to delete this article (see here). That's just too bad. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As I had originated this article, I have responded to the discussion on on the AfD page (see here).
This is a short note to thank everybody who took part in the discussion on this article. It was a pleasure exchanging views with you, and I think this is what makes Wikipedia so unique. The debate was useful in more ways than one. I learnt many new things about the WP, but morethan anything else it was important for me because I believe in the idea that is Wikipedia.
During the course of our lives, we often see our beliefs fall by the wayside, without so much as a murmur. But you give me a reason to believe. Thank you once again for that. I am happy to be here and I hope to contribute as much as I can to further strengthen this endeavor.
I'm looking forward to that. And some additional sources (and their information) have come up in the discussion, that now need to be worked into the article. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am adding the links to the article. Plus, I have initiated another article on Chanshal Pass in the Upper Himalayas. Would request your review once it is good to go from my side. Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Removal of list of 'services'
"A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."
--07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Restoration of Services and Links
I have been active on and off on Wikipedia. Have just opened this account. Very interesting debate. Remember that collective wisdom is supreme compared to arbitrary, individual action. In the absence of info about products and services, businesses will turn into a mystery.
- Restored services as per WP:CORP guideline:"Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
We have provided all the correct information with relevant references.
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC) We have improved the content of this Wiki page and provided all the correct facts and relevant third party references, so I appeal not ot delete this page from here. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Tone of article
This article is written like a corporate profile or an advertisement. Take a look at Comcast for an idea of what a good article on this subject should look like. Noformation Talk 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)