Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources provided in the AfD debate are not sufficient to meet our guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gomolo.in

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion because of lack of references to demonstrate notability. The speedy was contested, however, with several users (at the talk page) saying it's like IMDB, and reliable sources can be found. I've sent it to AfD procedurally because it does not appear quite speedyable but I myself haven't taken the time to do a lot of google searching, etc., so hopefully it can be discussed here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete my search for sources only found one tangential comment - and that in a blurb from the parent company. No third party sourcing = Fail WP:N = delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Couldn't find anything significant about the website. not notable enough. Nadesai (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete just another random website. I think doesn't deserve page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.69.68 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Gomolo.in is the only one online web source of Bengali Cinema. I have been working on Bengali Cinema and bengali film list. Most of the Bengali film article I added the external link as this website.Please look this third party source-Thanks.- Jayanta Nath (Talk 18:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to verify that this is the only site like this for Bengali Cinema (or that it's the "imdb" of Bengali film?). Such a source would definitely be helpful. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can say that it's the "imdb" of Bengali film still fillup all movies of Bengali updated in imdb. The problem is bengali community is so small and Bengali films are not updated in internaet resource. That is lack of our society. Yes citwf.com is also add some bengali films.- Jayanta Nath (Talk 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The so called "3rd party source" is not a reliable source reprinting a press release that promotes "research" that promotes the industry medium that the non-reliable source covers. Talk about incestuous! Clearly this is not non-trivial coverage by a reliable source.-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear TheRedPenOfDoom why are you comment gomolo.in is not a RS?, - Jayanta Nath (Talk 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will respond to those links on your talk page because they have nothing to do with whether or not THIS article should exist. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether gomolo.in is a reliable source. The question is whether the other sources backing up its notability are reliable. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayanta Nath, Is that your argument? really?? that some other random website quotes gomolo? User:Rjanag, in absence of any other reliable third party source, please delete the page. Nadesai (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a legitimate website, and it's in English, kinda. It's trying to be the Bollywood IMDB, among other things. I can't understand why it's up for deletion. We should drop this, now. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. Like I suggested above, I am also willing to swing "keep" on this, but only if you and Jayantanth can provide something to verify this claim; several editors have already expressed a doubt about this, and your word alone is unfortunately not enough on Wikipedia. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indiantelevision.com is ok as a source. It has: 51-200 employees engaged in an exhausting list of media enterprises, they actively publish and have significant traffic , and they have the required editorial process to be a Google publisher  meaning that they have the ability to check facts. Unless it can be proved that they don't check facts, they qualify as a reliable source (being incestuous media capitalists notwithstanding). Their article on Gomolo.in is a lot more informative than many trade articles, and the Gomolo.in survey is useful information if one is in a related media business . I'm guessing that other Mumbai trade media have covered Gomolo.in, but it might not be online. If the proponents of the article are really serious, they could contact the Gomolo.in CEO listed in the article and ask for press clipping references from his files. Milo 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This website is far far away from Indian IMDb or anything similar. This is a highly commercial website which just intends to spam all the webpages with their own links. Take a look at this page Quiz, Club Members, Contests??!! There are so many similar forums around. Should they all be entertained like this? Nadesai (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't agree. They have tons of information just like IMDB. That other stuff is commercial and for fun. All sites are commercial, and this one is no more so than IMDB. At least they don't clobber you with popups. I'm only in this discussion because I'm in love with Deepika Padukone (like about a billion other guys), and a link to gomolo.in appeared in her article. They have pics of her that are nowhere else, and they have the text of some interviews, to boot. This is no spam scam site. I've written to them, saying They are trying to delete the Wikipedia article about your website over at Wikipedia. They say your site is not notable enough, because there are so few references to you on the Internet. If you could let me know how long your site has been up and provide me with links to independent reviews of your site, I'd present that information to Wikipedia. I know only English and French, but if the only links you have are to sites in Hindi or whatever, then please let me have those, too. I will post their reply here if I get one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna stop both of you guys right here, because your back-and-forth is going nowhere. Milkbreath, arguing over how important gomolo is based on your own personal feelings, and no references, is useless, so let's wait until some sources are found. Nadesai, making fun of another editor isn't helping the situation. Both of you are welcome to contribute constructively to this discussion, but please refrain from biting one another; if you have constructive comments to make, please do so below this discussion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the outburst! Please consider this Nadesai (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's being stopped, I was going neither back nor forth, and I didn't see anybody make fun of anybody. I'll post any reply I get from Gomolo, as I've already said. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "it's the "imdb" of Bengali film" To help address this issue (but not from RS) there is a forum thread at Gomolo.in: "Is gomolo.in the best site on Indian movies?" Several posters seem convinced it is (though the first one (Jul 25) is apparently a promotions employee who sends Gomolo.in Tweets). The last one on the second page (Sep 05) confirms the Hindi - Bengali movie emphasis. The company claims, "gomolo.in has the largest database for Hindi and Bengali movies covering movies from the silent era to new movies under production..." Milo 07:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No demonstrated notability or reliability.  We have a very, very, very low threshold here -- that some other reliable/authoritative websites reference this one -- but it fails that very low threshold.  Perhaps in the coming years or months that will change and an article created then, but it fails now. 2005 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It helps to actually search before drawing conclusions. I've vetted three reliable sources that each covered somewhat different details of the Gomolo.in's June 2009 Movie Viewing Behaviour survey research:
 * TV leads Internet and newspapers in attracting movie goers: Gomolo.in report Indiantelevision.com (RS web publisher described above.)
 * TV trailers drag youth most to a movie: Survey The Hindu News Update Service (RS major newspaper.)
 * TV leads Internet and newspapers in attracting movie goers: Gomolo.in report. MassCoMedia News Details (Mass communications school partnered with Deakin University = RS)
 * While all three sources covered the same story, it's not a trivial story if one is in a related media business, and many people are. Those media percentage numbers are difficult for small businesses to get for free, and they are always changing.
 * The AfD issue is notability, and here are multiple, non-trivial WP:RS mentions of Gomolo.in. The survey story itself can be covered in a separate article section.
 * With "about themselves" info being WP:V/WP:RS ok, use Gomolo.in - About us and Ravisa.in - parent site as references for the company (Ravisa Infomedia) and its product web site (Gomolo.in, the movie info database). Some other reliable source details about the business are also likely to be available from the web. Altogether, this should be a small but satisfactory article. Milo 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, neither of the second two sources are about Gomolo, they're just citing one of Gomolo's surveys. I'm not saying that means we should delete (I haven't decided yet), just pointing that out. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your careful considerations, refreshing at AfDs.
 * WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
 * WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) (WP:GROUP): "...trivial coverage; such as ... meeting times ... extended shopping hours, ... telephone numbers, addresses, and directions..."; "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."; "Evidence of attention by ... national ... media is a strong indication of notability."
 * Indiantelevision.com contains statements about Gomolo.in's business strategy in the quotation beginning: "A key factor of this exercise was to gain proprietary intellect..., as well as two statements appearing in two independent sources noted below.
 * MassCoMedia does not contain a unique statement about Gomolo.in, but it seems to qualify as nontrivial, though not substantial: "...Gomolo.in CEO Pritam Roy."; "...Gomolo.in, a social networking portal dedicated to movie enthusiasts."
 * The Hindu's nontrivial, though not substantial coverage about Gomolo.in reads, "...Gomolo.in Chief Executive Officer Pritam Roy..."; "...Gomolo.in, a movie-related portal which provides information in three languages..." The "three languages" info does not appear elsewhere in multiple independent sources found so far. The Hindu is "India's National Newspaper".
 * Accordingly, Gomolo.in seems to meet the threshold requirements for notability by nontrivial, multiple independent sources including national coverage. Milo 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the guidelines. Like I said, neither of those last two sources are about Gomolo, and the only "coverage" in those sources is an offhand appositive or two, not true nontrivial coverage. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "neither of those last two sources are about Gomolo" I addressed that issue with a quote from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material." The sources need not be about Gomolo – only their contained coverage.
 * "offhand appositive" Typical of compressed news coverage, an appositive is a grammatical construction, used "...to produce shorter descriptive phrases", particularly by eliminating verbs of being such as "is". Appositives are journalistically-valid statements of fact.
 * In any case, grammatical structures are containers irrelevant to the content they hold. Content is WP coverage as long as "no original research is needed to extract the content" per WP:GNG.
 * "not true nontrivial coverage" To prove this claim, you will need to cite evidence that these appositely-stated facts about Gomolo.in,
 * "...Gomolo.in, a social networking portal dedicated to movie enthusiasts."
 * "...Gomolo.in Chief Executive Officer Pritam Roy..."
 * "...Gomolo.in, a movie-related portal which provides information in three languages..."
 * are somehow equivalently as trivial as
 * WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)'s examples of trivial coverage:
 * "meeting times"
 * "extended shopping hours"
 * "telephone numbers"
 * "addresses"
 * "directions"
 * Where is your evidence for such equivalency? Milo 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Stating that they must be equivalent doesn't make any sense. The selctive quotes provided actually consist of the entirety of the coverage.  That makes the coverage trivial. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've thoroughly documented, the guiderules state otherwise. Milo 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the list of examples of trivia is not the exhaustive list of what constitutes "trivial coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but items further proposed to be "trivial coverage" must be alike-type matches with intentional exemplars listed; "URLs" would be an alike-type match. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - three news reports covering the same survey issued by Gomolo, and no other soruces actualyl covering the company itself means that notability is not established. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Concerned about lack of significance and breadth in coverage, and no reliable support for the claim that this is the "Bengali IMDB". Note: this is not a duplicate !vote, since when I nominated this it was only a procedural nomination and I didn't state an opinion either way. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the utility of the site isn't in question, the notability is, and it clearly fails at this point. No prejudice to recreation when it becomes notable. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "notability ... clearly fails" I've shown above with detailed guide citations, that Gomolo.in just exceeds the notability threshold. Since you apparently don't accept the WP:GROUP consensus guide for notability now, why would you accept it in the future? Milo 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above are clear examples of Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you can't answer the question. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly fails [{WP:N]] and WP:WEB. WP:GROUP has nothign to do with this topic, nor does it meet that either. This is an unnotable website that frankly appears to be on a campaign to gain notability by appearing in Wikipedia, rather than appearing in Wikipedia because it is notable. The three little links above, all regurgitation of a press release about a survey the site did, does not meet any requirement for notability. Guidelines are very clear that one can not make itself notable just by releasing a lot of press releases. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "WP:GROUP has nothing to do with this topic" Gomolo.in is reported to have a CEO and a business strategy, which makes it a WP:GROUP for that category of notability.
 * "press releases" Nearly all business news originates from regurgitated press releases, but notability can't be determined from an unedited release. By comparing them, the texts of all three links have been rewritten and edited from the original press release. Once the press release has been rewritten, it becomes a valid secondary source for notability, since it has been processed by a reliable source editor.
 * "does not meet any requirement for notability" I carefully applied the guiderules – they are little links that meet all the tests. Gomolo.in just exceeds the required threshold, which I've thoroughly documented above. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. Article was speedied deleted twice under WP:CSD and twice previously failed to meet Wikipedias inclusion guidelines. Article currently has 2 sources; ravisa.in (owns Gomolo.in) and a link containing trivial coverage. Neither are sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many articles do not belong here.--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Old and irrelevant information. You also state an unconsensed personal opinion as though it were a fact.
 * The non-self-owned link currently in the article (Indiantelevision.com) has nontrivial but not quite substantial coverage, so by itself it's insufficient for WP:GROUP notability. However, multiple sources that are nontrivial yet not substantial, do pass the notability threshold (see WP:GROUP quote in Milo 21:08).
 * I found two more nontrivial sources and posted them above. One of them is a national newspaper – a "strong indication of notability" per WP:GROUP (see Milo (21:08). For notability, who notes is more important than what is noted.
 * Your apparent claim that Indiantelevision.com's coverage is trivial, is a personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) not supported by the WP:GROUP consensed guide. According to WP:GROUP's examples, trivial coverage is simple data like phone numbers and addresses. All three of the links contain statements of fact about the subject (posted above) which are not alike-type to the trivial coverage examples of data (see Milo 01:28).
 * Your last sentence is generalized puffery. Here's my counter-puffery: Significant failure to accept consensed project guidelines indicates a lack of commitment to both the principle of consensus and the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Persons who do not accept consensus are outsiders not welcome to edit the Wikipedia project. Milo 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'll admit I'm a deletionist. I believe that a subject on Wikipedia must be notable before the article is created, and not to create it and then let it develop its notability. It doesn't work that way here. It fails notability standards because it has a feel of being just another one of the thousands of these hybrid system startups (taking something like IMDB and combining it with Facebook.) Why create a Wikipedia article ASAP? Let the business grow and become notable, and THEN come back and create the article. Groink (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems more like a desire for orderly growth rather than deletionism (but I'll describe how it might make you an "inflationist"). It would somewhat challenge the concept of WP:Eventualism by requiring a threshold of creating referenced stubs.
 * In the present WP unreferenced stub model, deleting articles that ripen to notability after creation hurts third parties. In this case Jayantanth, apparently in good faith, created this article 1 December 2008 about a fairly new business. That business achieved threshold notability per the WP:GROUP guide (see above) June 9-14, 2009.
 * Deleting it now because it was created too early punishes Gomolo.in, and does not punish the article creator. This unfair practice would open the door to established businesses quickly creating articles (through throwaway paid accounts) in order to tarnish new competitors at WP – which would inflate prices a little for everyone.
 * Milo 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete currently fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB, etc - as documented above. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly FAILS WP:N . Please delete it. I think should've been speedy deleted 122.167.95.254 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't read the applicable guide, WP:GROUP. Milo 21:20, 26 July 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.