Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellebrum Technologies Limited (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I am wary of closing this as a delete per WP:CSB. Despite the fact that there are COI and spam issues here, there are sources to indicate that this is a company with employees in the hundreds that has received non-press release coverage in reliable sources such as India Telecom and Financial Express. Would we be deleting a telecoms company of a similar size if it was in the US? No. Tagged appropriately. Black Kite 11:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cellebrum Technologies Limited
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:CORP; insufficient coverage in secondary sources; self-published elements and only trivial or incidental coverage.  Chzz  ►  15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC) response to nomination I think this will be useful to all contributors on Wikipedia. Let us try to better understand the parameters behind this nomination:

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we be more specific about secondary sources. Newspapers, magazines, wesbites......?
 * Could we quantify "insufficient"? Insufficient in terms of what...news reports, write ups, case studies.....? Let us clearly say what kind of coverage is sufficient.
 * Except for the link to company website, I do not find any other self-published element in the article.
 * I have been a journalist myself,but I fail to understand how "trivial" or "incidental" coverage applies in this case. Is this trivial?
 * Delete per nominator, suggest speedy delete as blatant spam: yet another non-notable tech business using Wikipedia as a free ad host. The article also contains substantial swatches of promotional style patent nonsense: mobile value added services provider .... It offers technologies, solutions, and applications for the Wireless and Web domains.  Note that this apparently has not been listed twice and kept once; this shows up as second nomination due to an apparent glitch; can use this one for discussion since this is what got linked at AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article does not have any promotional content. It simply gives information - straight and specific. As to mobile value added services provider .... It offers technologies, solutions, and applications for the Wireless and Web domains.Well, this is what the company does. It would be interesting to see how we can put this better.
 * Delete but not convinced of speedy. Agree with nom. On the balance there is no evidence there is enough impartial third party coverage to establish notability and write an NPOV article. But the discussion about being about to be listed (I did not fully understand it), and the information in BusinessWeek, give me pause enough to suggest we let the debate run its course and see if by chance enough sources do exist. And Smerdis, I'm sorry, much as we may think the information value of promotional speak is low, I don't think one can call it *patent* nonsense. Martinp (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense includes "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Strings of vacuously abstract buzzwords count as that, in my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we get more specific about the kind of impartial third party coverage we are looking at? Maybe something like (|this). Talking of "patent nonsense" in this context, I guess, is utter nonsense.
 * weak keep. The company seems notable enough to me (stress on "enough"). Sources need to be found, but will probably come available with time (this is a problem of all things new and growing, that information is scarce in the beginning). The many anonymous edits are a source of worry, and indeed lead to suspect that somebody at the company is trying to influence the article (although not more than "influence"), but that is not yet a reason for deletion. After all is said and done I think that from an encyclopedic point of view this article has a right to be here. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * response Please note that there is evidence of anonymous IP edits to mislead; for example this edit claimed the company had taken over a company called ICE-365. Further research (on my part) proved the reference to be fake, and that the company had merely entered into a joint venture with ICE-365, and had not taken it over. --  Chzz  ►  14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mislead???To what end?? No, the article is not meant to mislead by any stretch of imagination. The article did contain information about ICE-365 acquisition (the information is true), but I do not understand the need for research on your part. 'Coz the article actually gave a link to the news item that you say you had to "research (on my part)".
 * Weak delete - there are some sources, but nothing "good enough" IMO! Seems like it might just be some corporate spam... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what is good enough? Maybe a case study like


 * Delete - Any company article on Wikipedia nowadays is essentially spam unless the company itself has some sort of superlative attribute that sets it apart from others. I can't see anything here that would qualify as "superlative" or particularly notable in any way. § FreeRangeFrog 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -, would indicate there is notability.  A search on Google news turned up stuff behind pay walls which did not look like press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's look at this another way. Why do you think this article will be "useful for all contributors", and why do you consider a news article about a failed IPO to be of particular importance? § FreeRangeFrog 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here I am talking about this discussion.A consensus on the above queries would be useful to all. The news article is meant as an example of the news coverage.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - a news article on a failed IPO is is important relative to this AFD discussion as the nomination indicates insignificant coverage. Regardless of wheher an IPO succeeded or failed, the fact that business press took note of this means that the company is notable.  After all, even failure is notable as evidenced by Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. -- Whpq (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But I see that as being notable because of Lehman Brothers, not this company. § FreeRangeFrog 22:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - I disagree. The title of the article is "Cellebrum IPO hits Lehman roadblock".  It most certainly is about Cellebrum.  Why would the paper care about Lehman squelching an IPO for some company that nobody takes any notice of? -- Whpq (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article mentions Cellebrum 4 times, But Lehman 15 times; only the connection to Lehman makes this newsworthy. --  Chzz  ►  05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not mean anything. The focus is on the company. Let me explain it this way: Suppose an area is hit by an earthquake and a newspaper runs a story on the damage to a town. What do you think would appear more frequently in the story?

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to Raj Kumar Machhan Whilst I am extremely grateful to your input in this discussion, I ask you to please put any comments at the end of this discussion. Please do not edit the existing text. Thank you. --  Chzz  ►  05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that. However, let me clarify as I feel your remark has the potential to be interpreted differently: I have taken care not to touch or edit the existing comments in any way. I have simply added my comments below the posts.
 * Reply - word counting an article is about as useful as counting google hits. Reading the article, it is very clearly about Cellebrum.  The reason Lehman appears so often is because of the necessary explanation of why the IPO got into trouble.  -- Whpq (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I thinik that the news references are not sufficient; The article is only being edited to promote the company and does not add any useful information to wikipedia. I don't see that a fairly minor Indian company is notable for the English wikipedia project, and I think it reduces the overall quality of the wikipedia project when articles such as this are left to simply promote organisations. It was blatant spam when first nominated, and the edits have only been to try to appease requirements to keep it; there is no truely useful information, and little sign that this will ever be added. I'd really like to see this go, rather than hang around for a long time, using wikipedia as an advertizing platform for the company. The bias in the writing is clear, so if a useful article is ever to exist on the subject it would need to be created from the start; nothing would be lost by removing this. --Jdzooks (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * responseYou have arrived at a whole lot of conclusions without any reasoning. Do you have anything specific to say on this? How can you say this is a "fairly minor company"? Again, can you specify what kind of coverage are we looking at? Can you point out a single instance of bias in the article? How can you say that "edits have only been to try to appease requirements to keep it; there is no truely useful information, and little sign that this will ever be added."? I frankly think your opinion is not worth consideration because all you have done is pass judgements without backing them up with any reasoning. Passing wild judgements without any basis is doing more harm to the Wikipedia project than anything else.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - a promotional tone is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for editting the article to have it adhere to a neutral point of view. We don't judge notability by whether a company major or "fairly minor", but rather through the existence of reliable sources covering the subject.  Regardless of how clear the bias in the writing is, unless the article is irredeemable spam, we don't delete on that basis and I don't see the tone of the article rises to that level. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Written like a corporate spam, notability is not established. May reconsider if backed with reliable sources and edited for tone.Beagel (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the IPO is permanently stalled, then notability is a discussion topic. If an IPO is accomplished and Cellebrum is listed on Bombay or National Stock Exchange of India, then notability won't be much of an issue.  So, perhaps waiting for 6 months would be a reasonable course of action viz the disposition of the article and topic. --Mr Accountable (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient coverage and notability

I am adding the following links here to address issues regarding Notability, Trivial and Incidental coverage, and Reliable sources. These are for your consideration.


 * The Economic Times: Cellebrum Eyes Local Company
 * The Economic Times: Headcount
 * The Economic Times: Mobile Music


 * The Economic Times: Service for 3G


 * The Financial Express: Revamp


 * Live Mint (Partner of Wall Street Journal) - IPO

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notabiliy of this organization on en.Wikipedia is questionable. I feel that the promotional attempts by Raj Kumar Machhan who as a member of this organization has a clear WP:COI is the only reason this article is here and quite frankly the only reason we are having this discussion.  There are lots of reasons why people should not write articles about themselves and organizations with which they are affiliated and this is a classic example.  Although COI is not a reason an article should be removed, there is nothing here so far that says this article would have been added to WP were it not for the promotional attempts from a company insider. Calltech (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand what is happening here. I address the reasons for deletion and you come up with this. All I am aksing you to do is treat this information on merit. Simple. You are getting down to personal issues. OK let me ask you this: How do you know I am member of this organization? Have I asked you what organization do you work for? Does anyone here need to know that? Apparently not. The reason being that we evaluate information on its merit. The contradictions in your reasoning are apparent. And how can you promote anything on Wikipedia given the fact that anyone can edit the article? I have relied on merit and honesty. But if that doesn't count for anything with you then I do not see any point in any kind of explaination.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I know you are a member of this organization? You say so yourself,  here (Technical Writer, Cellebrum Technologies Limited).  Why is it important? Because it CAN demonstrate lack of objectivity and CAN place your own promotional interests above that of WP, far more than someone else who has no financial or business ties to the subject matter.  This is not personal.  The fact that I bring up your name is simply because you have a business relationship with this organization.  And my question still stands - Would this article exist if not for the efforts by an insider? Calltech (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I told you. What if I had not metioned this at all. What would you say then? I could have written this under an assumed identity. In that case you wouldn't be in a position to make this comment. I thought it pays to be honest and transparent. But you give me reason to think these things do not matter at all. Do they? Yes, it is personal, because you have used personal information to make a point. You say it CAN demonstrate lack of objectivity and CAN place my own promotional interests above that of WP. But does it? What CAN happen and what is happening - I guess we are discerning enough to know the difference between the two. What happened to objectivity and conscious effort to respect the spirit of WP? Yes, this article has every reason to exist. Whether it is due to my effort or someone else's effort is just incidental. It would exist because the company deserves to be here. It meets all criteria for inclusion on WIkipedia. And it is pretty curious to see that you knew about my identify beforehand (I have discussed it on the discussion page of the article), but it is only now that you have taken it up, at the point when I have addressed most of the issues raised earlier on. Can you give me one specific reason why this article should not be here? Could you kindly define your parameters of Notability and we can take up a comparative analysis of this article visa-a-vis some of the articles of similar companies already included on Wikipedia. Now, that would be real objective. But I guess I am asking for too much? Am I?

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. It seems obvious that Raj Kumar is here for one purpose only. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Raj Kumar Machhan Specifc reasons were given in the nomination: "WP:CORP; insufficient coverage in secondary sources; self-published elements and only trivial or incidental coverage. ". For further details, see WP:CORP. The authors of the article are irrelevent, it should be assessed on its own merits. Parameters of notability are fully documented in WP:N. We do not compare articles - please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. (Out of interest, of the other companies you mentioned in the talk page, Hungama has now been deleted (as 'blatant spam') and OnMobile is undergoing serious revision and debate). --  Chzz  ►  10:26, 8 March 2009 (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.