Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abof


 * 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 no consensus. There has been no discussion leading to a consensus to delete the article. Strong suggestions to redirect to the article for the parent company. Joyous! | Talk 20:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Abof

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sheer advertising by company advertisers and it's not enough that they literally added nothing but PR and republished PR consisting of only what the company advertises about itself, simply take how the worst blatancy of these literally list what the companies thinks about itself, its plans and thoughts for its local activities, none of that is independent or news in fact, and we shouldn't mistake it as anything else. I myself had tagged this earlier but, given how the blatancy of advertising has only worsened, the clear solution for improving this is to delete. SwisterTwister  talk  00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * :I smell a few buzzwords. Delete. Pyrusca (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 05:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)]


 * Delete : No coverage by reliable sources. No indication of notability. Coderzombie (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: a quick WP:BEFORE turns up substantial coverage in reliable sources such as Bloomberg, Economic Times, and Forbes. Promotional tone can be addressed via standard copy-editing; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, we've established that Indian news publications are notoriously "pay-for only" and these people will quite frequently confess to it or the articles themselves will state it, therefore they cannot be confidently taken as actual substance. Next, the IndiaTimes is clear PR, as if it wasn't obvious, since it literally states company plans, "What the company's activities are and how it's currently going". When we apply policy WP:NOT, it damns anything of WP:BASIC, WP:CORP or WP:GNG, because those mean nothing compared to policy, something we use every day including at AfD.
 * The Forbes India is a clear PR, and if our own American is using clear PR, the India certainly would since it's known for it as it is, and these contents confirm it once again, since they all consistently keep the same form and materials of PR and only PR. When we start compromising with such blatancy and knowingly damage this encyclopedia, we cannot imagine the seriousness of what advertising would use out of it. There's no benefits of improving a blatant advertisement since it would only make it worse, and thus WP:NOT policy explicitly allows such removal of blatant advertising and when Wikipedia is clearly being mistaken as a sales catalogue, something other "general guidelines" cannot compare to.
 * If it wasn't blatant enough, the Bloomberg (which is obviously a PR side of it) goes to actually state "What Abof hopes to achieve, its current actions and thoughts about it, from the company itself". WP:BEFORE cannot apply obviously in this case, as any other Indian company AfD will show we simply ca never and perhaps never will (if they continue publishing such paid advertising) confide in them, because they are simply so advertising-founded (hence not substantial, significant, independent or usable). SwisterTwister   talk  06:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Above delete arguments carry no weight, even before considering WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect without prejudice to merge to the parent company. Sources in the article and reported here show WP:GNG, but the company has only been around since 2015.  For WP:SUSTAINED notability, the company needs to show more than the initial news bubble.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect obvious solution in this case.  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 3 December 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.