Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Id fresh foods


 * 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. The general consensus appears that the Forbes article alone isn't sufficient for notability, while an opinion that other sources support notability, it isn't shared by participants and the consensus is that the subject fails our notability requirements. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Id fresh foods

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional  article, with one possibly acceptable ref, the Forbes India. The rest are the usual notices about funding that do not show notability.  DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Stubify/Keep Current article is promotional. But Forbes, and Hindu are god sources. The subject deserves an artcle. I say chop it down to 3-4 sentences or whatever the RS permits. — usernamekiran (talk)  23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The company and its products are very popular in South India. Edited out the content to get rid of the promotional tone. Theaphorist (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little better than spam. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forbes India, Mashable, and Quartz sources show notability to a wider audience than local news. Deccan Herald is a weaker source as it is local, but it's nontrivial coverage as well. The other sources seem to be promotional (e.g. ETtech) or press releases or routine coverage of registered businesses (e.g. Crunchbase), but the sources above seem to indicate non-local notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Promotional concerns can be fixed with editing; it doesn't seem to be a blow it up and start over case, and some editors have been working on editing for tone. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the company have not achieved anything significant yet, apart from raising $30M. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site, where it belongs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not met, nothing but routine stuff. Whenever I see a mention of a company's funding in a Wikipedia article, I switch off. Companies shouldn't pay people to write Wikipedia articles about them - they always turn out awful. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Rude: Not appreciated. I'm the one who wrote the article. While even a non-wikian can comment about the work and content and it is totally accepted, implying someone is paid to write this article when they are the one who contributes their own personal time without any financial or commercial gain is insulting. Fundings are integral part integral part of coverage when the article is on startups, browse any startup article for that matter, majorityof the TechCrunch articles will disappear if the editor plans not to cover the funding news or announcements, they are made into news even by the most trusted media houses are for a reason. Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It's an encyclopaedia. Do you really think that in ten years' time, someone is going to want to read about the amount of funding a company has? The only reason that companies add information about their funding to Wikipedia articles is to boost their profile. It has absolutely no encyclopaedic value. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete essentially a spam article. Coverage is either routine or your typical PR business coverage that is frequently put out by marketing departments and published without much editorial oversight by the publisher. These don't get us to GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not by a PR or agency or by any companies department but by a fellow Wikian like you. A Google search will prove the relevance of the company. If it's about the tone of the article, why not someone volunteer to edit? Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)''
 * User talk:TonyBallioni did not start editing last week, and his edits are not limited to creating 2-3 entries for minor companies. Those, however, are hallmarks of a PR-hack: an editor who is paid to put spam on Wikipedia, and after few weeks will discard this account to get a new one (WP:DUCK test). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. One good source (Forbes India), all others are routine business coverage (rewritten press releases). Not enough to make it notable. At best, could consider userfy, maybe in few years they'll get a second good article or some awards or something. For now, WP:TOOSOON at best - your usual WP:CORPSPAM creation by a undisclosed paid editor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * : Deleted the funding section. Not just Forbes; Quartz, Mint and the citations are high quality (not sure about the Yahoo news one though). 'Encyclopedia' point makes sense, not with respect to Wikipedia though. Take any publicly listed company or startup articles in Wikipedia, most will carry financial information like Revenue, Profit/Loss etc (public company) and Funding information and investor info (for startups). Let's get into the WHY part of it. Businesses are the money making entities and its success is measured in terms of Revenue, Funding, Impact or Innovations they make. If you go by the Encyclopedia logic, no Encyclopedia will cover how much money a particular company is making or the box office collection of all movies, but Wikipedia does; maybe that's how known companies and brands are evaluated by the business world and popularity is judged by the public recognition. I also understand that none of the fellow wikians are adding a response with any personal benefits in mind and for the betterment of the Wikipedia and it's article itself. One should treat everyone with equal respect here, while anyone is allowed to share their opinion, personal or remarks about a contributor or his intentions are not welcomed. Let's wait and see the validity of "DUCK" remark, skipping the response now. My intention is not to get into name calling or personal attack here for an article which is not providing me any value other than my belief that it needs to exist. Theaphorist (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My above comment re: the sourcing was not about you or the article, but about its coverage in the press. It reads like your standard PR/marketing churn that are typical of business publications and where the editorial oversight could be slim. Coverage like this does not get us to GNG, even after the article has been cleaned up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for explaining, appreciate it. Theaphorist (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At AfD, it isn't the condition of the ARTICLE that determines whether or not it is kept. What matters at AfD is the General Notability Guideline. If the subject of an article doesn't meet that guideline, the article cannot be kept, it's that straightforward. (Oh, and it's only one !vote per editor. You shouldn't be stating "Keep" more than once or you risk both of your votes being ignored by the person who closes the discussion). Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited to to keep one. Theaphorist (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (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.