Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Keep as Withdrawn, as noting else has happened (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Craftsvilla

AfDs for this article:
Craftsvilla (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was at AfD in May and I'll note myself all of the listed links there blatant advertising, not only because Indian publications are so damningly notorious for "pay-for news", but literally everything in those links are either "Information supplied by the company", "Information given today by the company, see their website for their services" and other blatancies; even the American links listed here, such as the Forbes, are then by a "special contributor" which obviously hints it was not an actual publication journalist, but instead a freelance PR person. Also, the other link, Entrepreneur is then seriously only a guide.

I commented about these concerns at the first AfD as it is, so they not only apply, but they're also supported and complimented by simply the sheer blatancy of advertisements, including of this nature, therefore the only solutions are to delete them as what they are: Blatant advertising. Also, to show the blatancy, the history itself shows not only both the Indian advertising-only accounts but IPs also, so it's quite clear this was an advertising campaign and it was to the company's own efforts and acknowledgments of it. Important to note, this has literally been speedied twice before within years of each other and it's clear this was the third attempt, thus simply advertising in each and every case. (WP:NOT policy still applies) SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This one should be notable. Indian media is notorious for paid-news, yes, I agree to that assessment but one must not generalise the issue. If we reject all Indian sources for India-related topics, then I don't think there would many India related articles left on Wikipedia. What is more reasonable approach is to evaluate sources case-by-case basis, which I did and believe this particular entity meets the required standard (I didn't link any refs in here because they are abundantly available on web. Please do a simple google search or try here. Mine assessment was more based on Hindi-language sources.) Anup [Talk] 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America 1000 04:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  The nomination provides no WP:DEL-REASON, so editors must guess as to the purpose for the nomination.  In the previous AfD, the nominator cited "notability", which would be WP:DEL8, although when sources were brought to the AfD the nominator asserted that they were "simply expected coverage", which is not policy-based terminology.  No mention was made then of "advertising".  Currently, there is no concern for notability.  The word "blatant" or forms of the word appear here five times.  If the problems are now "blatant", how do we interpret the absence at the last AfD of a concern for blatancy or any concern for "advertising"?  The nomination states that the concerns were stated at the previous AfD, but objectively I see no basis for this assertion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  Here are the sources currently cited in the article:
Unscintillating ( talk) 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and analysis - One thing that we've established here at AfD and any recent AfD for an Indian company closed as Delete, will show that these such publications are notorious for including company advertisements and paid ones at that, therefore both violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (both policies) and thus general ones such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:N will not apply; first of all, the Forbes links here are not in fact staff-authored, and they explicitly say "contributor-generated" hence it's basically an indie blog hosted at Forbes itself. The other sources explicitly include interviews, company financials and other such listings, therefore also violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT because Wikipedia is explicitly not a soapbox or a PR webhost and that's one of the Wikipedia Foundation Pillars, therefore any general notabilities would still not apply.
Next, these links, as if not blatant enough, literally contain such information such as If you look at the company website, it shows us....The company said today....The company and its clients....The company's spokesman and businessman says....The CEO's thoughts are....The company's services for its clients are....This information is from the company's website...The company's own records shows.... None of that is independent and we should not mistake it as such, especially since once again the history itself and the first AfD showed the blatancy of it, and how this was itself clearly a company-initiated advertisement, once again also violating policies WP:NOT.
All these Keep votes have stated are "You're not explaining why it should be deleted" or triviality such as "Sourcing exists" , but none of it actually acknowledges the concerns especially now considering policy WP:NOT, therefore we should not ignore it. As for the earlier comment of "Indian media is notorious for paid-news, yes", this once again emphasizes how we therefore cannot confide in Indian publications, regardless of anything or anyone, because that in itself then violates the Wikipedia foundation of WP:SPAM which explicitly states "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising", all of the links in that Search still only consists of PR, either blatantly stated as such or covertly stated. As it is, WP:Deletion policy allows such cases since that itself is also founded in policies about article deletion. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question  What's with the shifting indent for this post?  The same thing happened in the nomination.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question  If WP:SPAM says that it is a content guideline, why does the post say that it is a "policy" and a "Wikipedia foundation"?  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question  I don't see anyone raising an issue of notability in this AfD, so why does this post challenge the people saying "sourcing exists"?  Regarding the 761 Hindi sources, the post says, "all of the links in that Search...consists of PR, either blatantly stated as such or covertly stated"  I will assume that a "blatant press release" is the same thing as a "normal press release"?  Besides the question of how someone translated 761 Hindi sources, and was able to confirm "covert press releases" for the links that were not "normal press releases", the whole exercise is irrelevant without a notability concern.  So does this suggest that an as yet unstated notability concern will be forthcoming?  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question  The previous AfD said nothing about advertising or WP:NOT issues, so why does this post discover "the first AfD showed...clearly a company-initiated advertisement...also violating policies WP:NOT"?  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Numerous sources available to satisfy WP:GNG, and AFD is not cleanup so the current state of the article, contrary to SwisterTwister's claims, is irrelevant. Smartyllama ( talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply
No, it's that the publications listed are notoriously blatant for republishing company advertising and any Indian company AfD will show this, therefpre it's blatant advertising and we're hosting it if it's accepted. Also, this is violating policy WP:NOT itself because it's an advertising page, WP:GNG is a guideline, unlike WP:NOT which is a policy that we use everyday. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Looking at the claim of "any Indian company AfD will show" "that the publications listed are notoriously blatant for republishing company advertising", let's look at the previous AfD.  By the previous post's definition, this previous AfD satisfies "any Indian company AfD".  This previous AfD does not include the words "WP:NOT", "blatant", and "advertising".  As the editor who made the previous post was a participant in the previous AfD, one can not suppose that the previous AfD was a statistical fluke.  Thus the claim is falsified.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This particular firm is actually notable. It is however interesting that the article is written exactly in the cookie-cutter style of e-commerce firms. I am unable to tell if this is a case of imitation of other WP articles under the false but understandable assumption this is what we want, or undeclared paid editing, or something in between. But this one is worth fixing. About half the article mentioned above are mere mentions, and some are from sources prone to promotionalism , but the overall impression I get is that they are sufficient to support notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH, sources are present in abundance. Pratyush ( talk) 18:40, 2 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craftsvilla_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146677932"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE