Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiKwik (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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Clear advertising, not only because we've established these publications largely, knowingly and otherwise obviously republish company advertising, but because there's consistency in all of them: For example: 1 is their own website -- 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 is a trade publication -- *3 is a trade publication, focusing with their life story -- 7, 11 and 12 is a local newspaper, but is an announcement, so is 8 -- 9 is a known PR republisher, only announcing the company's own finance plans -- 13 is a local PR award. Now, for the later added sources, they are: 1 is a finance announcement, 2 is also similar, but worse, because it's a clearly labeled "Company plans and their own words about it", same with 5 whereas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all follow. None of it satisfies our simplest policies, WP:NOT and the closely followed WP:CORPDEPTH, because the standards state: [Unacceptable sources are] brief announcements, simple statements, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, passing mentions, press releases, any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, any material by them, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by or other. Our policies clearly state there's no negotiating in advertising since it has no place here, wherever it was republished. A simple searchhere clearly shows the criteria fitting, since all of them are either clearly labeled announcements or thinly hidden signs of it. The history also shows clear signs of likely employees or hired help, because they all share in the focused consistency, so policy WP:PAID applies. SwisterTwister  talk  22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It is hard to imagine circumstances under which any ten person company has achieved notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This one certainly hasn't. - Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - This is a difficult borderline case, and I agree with some of the nomination's concerns about the article and the quality of its sources. Most of the sources present a biased picture with an overwhelming focus on perceived accomplishments and growth (unfortunately that style is all too common in articles about startups and "entrepeneurs"). But several of them (especially in "Further reading") also include additional commentary from the authors themselves and factual information. The allegation that all added entries in "Further reading" are press releases, advertising or republished information, has no clear evidence to back it up. Also, neither the size of a company (it has more than 10 employees by the way - the source is misrepresented and only covers the "core team"), nor previous COI edits (most of them have been cleaned up anyway) are valid reasons for article deletion. Lastly, critical coverage in Mint shows some public interest: this is clearly not your average backyard startup. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cleaned up the article, removed the advertising, and added more sources, including recent news that's getting coverage. This one easily passed Afd just a few months ago - what changed? Timtempleton (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably Delete After the clean up,the status of the company seems clearer: not yet notable. The evidence for this is that the references are still almost entirely notices about raising funds, or obtaining permits. The  best source is the April 2015 Forbes article, which says specifically it is not yet significant. Of course, that was 2 years ago and it might have become s=more substantial, but there's no equal quality source to that effect, and the company is still trying to raise small amounts of money. This raises the question: if there are RSs that say a company is not notable in its sphere of influence, does that make it notable by WP standards. A literal reading of the GNG would imply that it does; I consider that a paradox which has to be resolved by  reading sources, not just counting them.  But this is WP, and lack of logic is sometimes no barrier to  consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Third most popular mobile wallet in India. 50 million users according to other source in article. We'd be hard pressed to find a company with 50 million users in the US that isn't on Wikipedia already. Timtempleton (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Additional sources are also listed. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 07:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Forbes India
 * Mint (published by Mint)
 * Mint
 * ZDNet
 * Mint
 * The Economic Times
 * The Economic Times
 * The Times of India
 * Business Standard
 * Comment and analysis - Every single there is either a paid press or a clear republished business announcement, not only because of the mirrored consistency but take such blatant quotes as "The company's journey and its path ahead and what it says" that violates WP:GANG because it says we need independent coverage not based from primary sources. All others are clear in their influences such as "The company's finances and actions", "MobiKeio announced it is....And what the spokesman said", "The company's finances transactions", "MobiKwik wants to....and its words about it"; the policy that overtakes GNG is WP:What Wikipedia is not because of the clearly stated label "Users must not advertise or promote" and there are 2 sections about it, and fittingly for such an advertised "business profile" as "The company's path and ahead" and especially when the last link actually states the article is part of their PR section complete with the words "a starting company" thus not satisfying GNG.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the page survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; the content is still company claims and aspirations, partnerships, product launches, and minor industry awards. WP:TOOSOON -- no encyclopedic relevance just yet. This content might just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep After a review of sources, I can find at least two that appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability and a number of others that are on the margins. For example, the second Mint article and the ZDNet article posted by North America above. -- HighKing ++ 14:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Every single of the sources are either the company's employees talking about themselves or routine coverage. Some of the sources are also not exactly reliable sources.
 * the ZDNet article is a contributor blog.
 * The coverage in Economic Times/Times of India, , are all in the small biz section which is focused on upcoming startups (and it vulnerable to promo). A quick look at the articles show that it mostly consists of the founders talking.
 * Business standard This is a routine redressed press release about a product launch announcement.
 * 2 articles in the Mint are both of the type "Mobikwik, a mobile wallet company, has announced that it ...". The third one is a tabloidy coverage of a blog dispute
 * The company is an up and coming company, but not yet notable. The coverage in reliable sources is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH at this moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 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.