Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirraw


 * 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. And will SALT. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirraw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company that does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources are clearly press releases, and there is no indication that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill company.

A warning flag is raised by the fact that this article has previously been created by two different socks of prolific sockmaster User:OfficialPankajPatidar, who has been engaging in undisclosed paid editing. bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. MT TrainDiscuss 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Hagennos (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. MER-C 11:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Mirraw is not a "run of the mill" company - it is one of the biggest online retailers in the world's fastest growing online retail market (india) and to this day is a bootstrapped company (another "novel" aspect about Mirraw - to have raised funding would have made them "run of the mill"). The sources are not all Press Releases either - the first 3 references are absolutely bonafide from some of India's biggest media companies, and the last one, though not from a "media" source (but still not a press release) - it is a website that is run by Franchise owners association of India and they feature their artices about promising companies. Its not a news-media socurce in the traditional sense but it is no press release either. user:Subho2017 —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The first two references are (slightly) rewritten press releases, also known as churnalism. The other two are straight press releases with no attempt made to make them look like real articles. It is really rather unmistakeable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please wait - I have found other authentic articles to replace the last 2. Thanks for teaching me what "churnalism" is - but regardless the first two are from reputed sources, at least very reputed in India user:Subho2017

I think when Wikipedia alleges that some entity is not famous, they probably mean "not globally famous". But I hope they realize, that India is a highly populous country and one of the fasting growing economies in the world. It is entirely possible for an Indian company to have more users (all within India) than some "international" app or website. It s entirely possible for some Indian book or film to sell more copies/views than some book/film from France or Italy. Please note that most of the references for this article are from very reputable sources - again sources that may not be well known in the outside world but which most likely have more viewership in India than The Guardian of the UK or La Figaro of France. Also being that India is one of the fastest growing economies, often "unknown" companies of India are actually poised to become some of the biggest in the world - for eg - each of the "e-tailers" of India (fastest growing ecommerce market, now that China has topped out), though not well known to the outside world, are actually on their way to becoming among the biggest in the world. Same with Mirraw - it does not have to be popular outside India.

Wikipedia has to realize that the bulk of their viewership now comes from emerging economies like India, rather than a UK or Australia - and the trend will keep growing for decades to come. user:Subho2017 —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * While you are right about the need to cater to a global readership, and Wikipedia policy agrees with you about that, there are a couple of misunderstandings in the post above.
 * First, Wikipedia does not care about an entity being famous. "Famous" is never a criterion for inclusion, and nor is "popular" - "notable" is the criterion, and that is something rather different. Especially since Wikipedia has a particular definition of notability. Most famous people and things are probably notable, but many notable people and things are very far from being famous. The criteria a company needs to meet are presented here and here.
 * Second, it is indeed quite possible to be locally or regionally notable. Flipkart and Myntra cater to the Indian market only and most people outside India have never heard of them, but they are very obviously notable. So that would also not be a valid reason to remove an article, and it is not the issue here.
 * Third, as has already been explained, sources have to be independent. A press release is never going to be an indication of notability even if it is published in The Hindu or The Times or The Washington Post or any other of the world's major publications. A feature article in a major national newspaper is going to carry more weight than a feature article in a small local newspaper, but that is not the concern in this case. Have a look at WP:SPIP which says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability" and goes on to explain why that is not the case.


 * One press release source has been removed from the article but it was replaced with another one, so there are still no independent sources in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 February 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.