Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalaage

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Kalaage

Kalaage (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)

My PROD statement: Apart from the promotional undertone with which the page has been constructed, the page only poses as a platform for the company to get more users to sign up. As also seen in the company's site's main page where Wikipedia is mentioned under "Press Coverage", we have the reason to doubt that the creation of the article was bankrolled by the company itself. Additionally, the sources are mostly PR or "paid articles", whichever term works best for our understanding. As has been a practice here in recent times, we should stop companies from engaging in blatant advertising on Wikipedia. // However, after the evident pruning by the creator/editor, there is still the problem of PR as sources. The sources are PR because they only cover things that a company would know, as to what they are doing and what they are going to do. Moreover, don't understand why it's notable. It's just a startup getting funding from VCs, that's it. Again, the biggest evidence we have that this article only serves as a promotional bulletin board for the company is the company's website which boasts about it. This is something new and surprising. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

keepThe main source cited such as DNA which has nothing to do with the company, I believe my fellow contributor thinks DNA is a media which is closely associated with the company or maybe get's paid for writing articles or PR but you may do a bit of research on DNA as well it's credibility and value as a newspaper. Second thing people from other countries and places should be open enough to understand the fact that there are things in our areas which are valuable and notable to our side of the world and these maybe insignificant to the majority of people around my fellow contributors from other places. The article was used to boast which maybe agreed but it can also be taken to be a matter of pride to have a wiki article about yourself and not be aware that this is considered as a Wikipedia-sin as per my fellow contributor. And when we talk about advertising on Wikipedia it would be funny to say that because if people come here by typing "kalaage' in google search that should mean they already know about the same and it is not like every other place on wikipedia has started to flash Kalaage as the cool new page on wikipedia which according to me would be the real advertising. I have mailed the company to remove the same and not to use it in such manner after learning about the same. I have improved the article and I am a bit new to Wikipedia contribution, so instead of friendly suggestions, I think this is blatant bullying of newbies on Wikipedia by people who have little or no knowledge about the subject. Please consider this thing that you can merely research using Google sitting on the other side of the world and not know the realities on ground. It is a unique kind of social network which is trying to connect online writers and trying to get them connected with publications who can eventually get them published as featured by yourstory which is a business watch from India. I can also come up with various counter arguments like you are from a competing organisation and trying to malign the article, as you have without any evidence said the the sources are "paid". And for the boasting point I have myself got to know it now and asked the company to put it down, I contacted them via email provided on the website. Apart from that I am again requesting the fellow contributors to check on Google News and other sources. The page has been there since two months and this kind of balatant AfD out of the blue feels nothing but bullying for a newbie like me. I do not go on making pages like every other day but when I take my time out for something I try doing the best I can. Assefme (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 02:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• DELETE: Subject lacks substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• delete - apart from the blatantly promotional text and circumstances of creation, the sources are entirely primary and a basic WP:BEFORE turns up only press releases, press release reprints and funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – adopt rationale by @David Gerard. Quis separabit? 15:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just quoting another user's statement is not helpful here. Please furnish your arguments. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: You must NOT struck other person's !vote unless it is a double !vote or by a confirmed sock. Closing administrator will take care of what !vote weighs what. Ping @[email protected]:. Anup [Talk] 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: -- do not strike anything written by another editor unless you are an admin with a valid reason to do so. Quis separabit? 13:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern -- my delete vote is based on the fact that the article is clearly an exercise in COI/POV-worded unreliably sourced promotionalism, which is pretty much, IMO, what @David Gerard said, only better, which is why I adopt[ed] his rationale. Quis separabit? 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I understand, and I apologize to both Rms125a and Anup Mehra. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

*Improve I would say the claims of sources being PRIMARY are not justified as all the sources are independent of the company. And I would still consider keeping if improved in terms of Neutral PoV. Enwrit (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Enwrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage about the website itself. Created by a sock who shows clear signs of COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Assefme/Archive for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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.