Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlabs (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 delete.  Sandstein  20:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Marlabs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. From the prior AfD: Fails to meet notability requirements. Most third-party online coverage consists of paid articles, press releases, etc. UnstableAngina (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. It's hard to even find a source that objectively describes what the company does e.g. The Deccan Herald article describes the company's activites thus: "Marlabs enables digital innovation for enterprises and technology providers by delivering seamless customer experience and business efficiency." Meanwhile The New Indian Express article says they offer "360-degree digital transformation frameworks". Fails WP:ORGCRIT.--Pontificalibus 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - still fails GNG as it did before Spiderone  08:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stub - While the company itself doesn't have a lot of coverage around what it is or what it does, the two articles as referenced by Pontificalibus are consistent with what they do. I cross-referenced the article with their technology related offerings. Digital360 is apparently a four-pronged offering, which includes - Digital Infrastructure, Digital Security, Digital Experience, and Digital Operations. The article by The Deccan Herald that describes it as a company which delivers seamless customer experience and business efficiency fall under their Digital360 premise of Digital Experience and Digital Operations, as referenced once more by The New Indian Express. Other classifications for notability can be met with recent accomplishments as well, I believe. For example, The AI Authority covered NASSCOM awarding the company with the AI Game Changers award in 2018 - 50 Best AI Related Innovations of 2018. It's also on the NASCOMM website. You can use the cited reference to access the report, which is free and easily accessible as well. Another example of notability might be recorded in Forrester identifying Marlabs among a handful of companies as a pioneer in Natural Language Generation for Analytics. The CIO Review identified them in 2014 among the twenty best companies providing cloud solutions. This should provide a strong enough reason for this article to at least qualify as a stub article, which can be improved upon through the months. I seem to have missed adding the Forrester reference, which I will now. Might help clear out some confusion, I guess. I was warned about the article being one that had faced deletion, I think twice, before I started work on it, but this seems to be decently referenced and clean. I don't think it fails WP:ORGCRIT. Thanks. MakersBreath (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - A search found references that were brief mentions, press releases, unreliable, or general announcements. Nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. A stub article has nothing to do with notability. The company is either notable or it is not. In this case, I believe it is not based on not receiving the type of in-depth coverage required. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stub - Alright. I'm currently working on the article as well. Based on everything you've said, and with a ton of help from Wiki Chat, I've stripped the article of anything that might even remotely be sourced from Marlabs itself. Press Releases, own company citations, all of that. Still a little new at this, so I'm sorry for not being more thorough. Anyway, please take a look and let me know how it looks now. There are still a couple of links that allude to Marlabs in a list as a "name drop", but I've kept those considering they are announcements on the native website. If "Best Places to Work - NJ" releases a list citing that a company won their own award, I'd call that a valid reference. Same with the others, I've only cited lists that are more an announcement than anything else. This adds to the credibility of the source as well; from the horse's mouth, right? I still think it's notable enough to be included into Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, yes, and it should give information about breakthroughs as well. As an engineer with a minor in artificial intelligence, I do think that winning the NASSCOM award puts them in that stratosphere. The link to NASSCOM's report is on it as well, and it's a free report in which they've identified the 50 best companies in the AI sphere. The controversy is also supported by court documents, which I believe is important. It's the truth, again from the horse's mouth. I know I'm new and I may not understand a lot of the finer details around Wikipedia, but wouldn't it be better for all of us to actually work to improve the article than rush it into deletion? There is a decent amount of third-party coverage, still. Isn't that why there are tags that read, "Article requires improvement" or "Article requires valid references". Why the need to rush it into deletion after its barely gasped for its first breath? Thanks. MakersBreath (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't consider that any of the awards listed can establish notability.
 * - www.bestplacestoworknj.com requires companies to apply, pay a fee and submit a survey. Maybe even all companies paying recieved this award. Certainly only a small fraction of comapnies in NJ applied, so the award is meaningless.
 * - Ranking 266 of 500 "solution providers" in North America by revenue does not establish notability either
 * - CIO review - This is a PR publication where companies pay to be featured in lists. See: here for example.
 * - NASSCOM is an Indian trade association, the AI Game Changer awards involved tech companies submitting case studies for consideration. There is no indication that being among the 50 companies selected confers any degree of notability.
 * These all fall under "examples of trivial coverage" listed under WP:ORGDEPTH, and we have nothing that would comapre with the "examples of substantial coverage" listed thereafter.-Pontificalibus 09:11, 6 December 2018 (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.