Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invento Robotics


 * 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. Valley2 city ‽ 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Invento Robotics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is effectively a duplicate of Mitra Robot, an article we already have. All the citations here are for the product Mitra Robot, practically all of the notable coverage is for the product, the company doesn't even have an independent website for itself (the website is www.mitrarobot.com). Lacks notability per WP:NCORP for its own page.

Not to mention the page being created and edited by a SPA, as reported on COIN. The page reeks of promotional editing; it's so hopeless it would likely need to be started again per WP:TNT even if it were notable, despite other editors' attempts to clean it up. I mean, it's literally promoting their robot allegedly "de-risking" your room of coronavirus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure PR. Guy (help!) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unlikely to be notable, clearly promotional, single-editor, duplicate content. Darren-M   talk  22:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the article itself is a big ad. I found two kinds of sources in a search: puff pieces that are churned out of press releases, and a few sources that look like actual coverage. This India Times article is good. This Financial Express (real pub or fake? Who knows anymore) article looks somewhat OK. There is also coverage in Huffpost India, Entrepreneur India, the Hindustan Times, the South China Morning Post and this book published by Sage. I don't really care if this is kept or deleted. But it strikes me that the problem here is that the company has engaged in so much promotion and marketing in the media, and likely in this article via UPE, that it's very hard to tell what is real and independent coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a purely PR/Promo article. --  Dane talk  03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is, as JzG says, pure PR, even substantially cleaned up. I find a great number of the sources highly suspect (ie: not RS). Not 100% sure about notability, *maybe* it meets the threshold by a small margin once you weed out the paid garbage, but I'm really not inclined to let them try to use Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle, either, especially with all the duplicate content involved with the Mitra article and without declaring per the ToU. That book source appears to be an interview, and material cribbed from an interview. Hindustan Times, interview. SCMP doesn't even appear to mention Invento or Mitra except as an "also ran" at the very bottom. Entrepreneur.com is a passing mention. The Economic Times article is a press release. FinancialExpress is primarily about Niramai and frankly looks like a press release from Niramai. ExBulletin is an interview. This really isn't looking good... Waggie (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I de-tagged it for A7 as there was a (somewhat) credible claim of significance, making it ineligible for A7 in my view. I'd kept an eye on the article to see what became of it following this, fully intending to send it through AfD if it did not improve. The de-tagging however, does not mean that (a) it is notable, or (b) it is not promotional. In relation to notability - the coverage in reliable sources is incredibly difficult to identify as most seems to be regurgitated PR junk, even in seemingly OK publications. I am on the fence as to whether it meets the notability guidelines for articles or corporations as I am struggling to find coverage which seems truly reliable. In terms of promotion; the article (even in its' significantly pared back state) is irrecoverably promotional. To the point where the only way forward appears to be to blow it up and start over. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * !Keep. Invento Robotics is one of the major company in India in the field of Robotics. I think the references given from credible sources like the Hindu, week ,Indian Express etc and other sources validate the content and hence the company warrants a mention in wikipedia. Anuj 0601 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Anuj 0601 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete company spam, and not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Drive-by from the COI noticeboard. It is some nick. Spam.  scope_creep Talk  16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above Spiderone  17:50, 5 July 2020 (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.