Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limeroad.com


 * 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 rewritten/stubified version still does not appear to pass muster with most discussants. MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Limeroad.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My extensive PROD nearly immediately removed boldly with the thin and unconvincing basis of "news exists", but my concerns explicitly stated that the news found are simply what the company advertises about itself (which is not surprising) or then other simple trivial and unconvincing coverage. My PROD essentially explains everything so I still confirm it. SwisterTwister  talk  03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom it's been cleaned up since the PROD, but the sourcing is still really bad and too much of it actually fails verification - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Duplicate !vote struck. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)]


 * Keep Sadly the company does find mention in the newspapers such as The Economic Times, Mint (newspaper) and Hindustan Times which makes it notable according to WP:CORP
 * 1) Fashion curation apps like LimeRoad, WithMe, Voonik are carving a business out of recommending what to wear
 * 2) Indian fashion scrapbooking site LimeRoad raises 30 million dollar Series C
 * 3) LimeRoad to redemption: Why e-com troubles make Suchi Mukherjee happy
 * 4) Fashion e-tailer Limeroad enters menswear segment
 * The title seems misleading. It should be renamed to Limeroad or LimeRoad (The choice of capital R in between is deliberate here going by some articles and .com only suggests its an e-commerce website). Also the "Partnerships,"Online Traffic" and " Awards and Recognition" parts of the article are unsalvageable. It seems to be a stub after all these editing but the company seems to pass the notability test as per the verifiable sources.  vivek7de  --tAlK 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT -- unsalvageable even if the company is notable. Check out this contribution diff, which restored 3500 worth of promo content, while removing the AfD template. No point to keep this garbage in article history. No prejudice to recreation as LimeRoad if notability can be proven and better RS exist (which is not likely per the current state of things). But maybe the company will become more notable in the future, who knows? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It is written like an advertisement. Runku4g (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've blocked the article creator for spamming. Discussion should focus on whether the sanitized version of the article is worth keeping.  Sandstein  15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sanitized version. It may be doomed to be a stub forever, but there are no rules against that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete sanitised version. It's a bit better, but I'm still unconvinced by the sourcing. (Also, why are we sourcing claims about an Indian company's activities in India to not merely an English paper, but an English tabloid.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * did you mean for there to be a whole new discussion after the break, or is there a duplicate !vote above? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was specifically phrased as discussion of the sanitised version, so I proceeded discussing that in particular as should be reasonably clear from both Sandstein's actual words and mine - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your original vote was also in reference to the cleaned up version, hence my inquiry here. I don't think it's standard to !vote twice at AFDs. I also don't think it's standard to respond to good-faith questions with condescension, but it appears irresistible for you to do so. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saddened by your assumption of bad faith - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed a reasonable and legitimate question directly to a different editor, and you responded with the assertion that the answer to my question was "reasonably clear." Obviously it wasn't "reasonably clear" to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. And you didn't exactly "proceed with discussion", you in fact cast a whole new !vote, hence my very reasonable question about whether users were supposed to cast entirely new !votes after the break, or merely proceed with a discussion of a particular version of the article. The bad faith here was yours, not mine. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is still the same discussion, so everybody's opinion only counts once.  Sandstein   05:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the "sanitised version" is equally unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete to be sanitized or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler to accept one version over the other; to suffer the slings and arrows of sources that are only PR, repackaged PR, company announcements, company sourced interviews, mundane financial information - Or to take arms against a sea of promotion and say, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Alas, to be lacking in GNG and CORPDEPTH is the true state of each version. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If this article does get deleted then I also suggest putting up Voonik for deletion as it has the same "sea of promotion" in it.  vivek7de  --tAlK 19:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty promotional, do a WP:BEFORE and if you can't find stuff that convinces you then by all means put it up for deletion, you don't have to wait on this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not really convinced that it meets NCORP and add to that the promo pressure, I go with a delete. The sources are also not very convincing. For example, ET has a very brief coverage (~150 words) out of which 100 words are quotes by the founder and investor. HT is an interview of the founder which is not useful per WP:CORPIND. Business Standard is a vert brief coverage about funding. LiveMint is probably the only source which is somewhat better but not enough. The company has been trying to promote itself but it doesn't seem to have received enough secondary attention.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Well over the top for GNG as well as CORP.  International coverage in the UK, and coverage of A. M. Marketplaces Pvt Ltd. in businessweek.com, link, are further evidence.  The only question worth asking is, since it is a startup from 2012, does it satisfy SUSTAINED?  This company seems to be beyond just a potential if they are claiming 10000 merchants.  As usual, WP:PROMO specifies NPOV, which means that we are required to report why the company has commercial appeal, else the article would not be NPOV (and thus fail WP:PROMO).  Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 24 October 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.