Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (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. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was reviewed at Deletion Review, and they asked I expand on the close. Here are the two statements I gave:
 * Since people are asking for more, ok: We start with an article that is three short paragraphs, much shorter than the amount of prose that has already taken place here or at the AFD. While Cunard went to great lengths to explain how it received coverage, it simply didn't overcome the arguments about the company being a small, new and not yet notable company. The nomination mentioned the previous AFD (which I did look at) and the early and late !voters had the opportunity to already preview the sources that Cunard presented, as they were the exact same sources given in the previous AFD. The other keep votes were basically saying "enough sources exist" but didn't explain how those sources were adequate, how they actually went into depth; they didn't overcome the claims of the nominator. SwisterTwister gave a detailed analysis of the sources, which raised a number of issues. Interesting, but the other issues were not decisive, although he did echo the concerns of the nominator when it comes to depth of sources, and the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company. Light2021's contribution was small, but understandable as they had previously gone into great detail on the other AFD, which I took at face value. Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The strongest !vote was the nom, which also talks about depth, plus the insufficiency of the sources. ST's argument was also very interesting, even if a bit meandering. Cunard's input was well researched and I don't question the accuracy but reading it, while staying objective, doesn't scream "independent, thoughtful analysis" by the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered.
 * In response to a question:


 * Both come into play in at least two of the votes. SPIP is always a concern as an editor, but wasn't really a major factor in my decision making, as the comments were mainly focused on CORPDEPTH and sources in general. The idea that this was spam didn't enter my mind, to be honest. The close was actually made easier by Cunard because I trusted him to provide the most solid evidence of notability, conveniently put on the same page. Unfortunately, each of those entries was rather mundane stuff you would see in press releases, which supported the claims of the nom et. al. Things like "Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders" or "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform" which is specifically what CORPDEPTH calls trivial coverage. Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. The quotes simply talked about the company in the exact terms that CORPDEPTH clearly excludes. I would have been easier (and obviously less controversial) to close as "NO CONSENSUS" but that is kicking the can down the road and doesn't reflect what I saw as a policy based consensus. I would agree that WP:N has probably tightened up when it comes to businesses. I would not call that a drift towards deletionism, I think the community has simply grown weary of the spam and has drawn a more definitive "line in the sand" on notability when it comes to start up businesses, and this is reflected in both consensus and the written policies around WP:GNG. I have to use the policy as it is written today, not 11 years ago when I started. But the tightening isn't the issue here, nor any concern about spam, nor did I apply a higher standard, nor did I need to. The lack of sufficient high quality sources was the issue, and specifically, CORPDEPTH was the specific claim that was not overcome in spite of a great deal of effort. (and pardon my wordiness, I've been rather swamped over the last 24 hour, so my prose isn't as concise as I like when I'm a bit rushed) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

An unremarkable private tech company with insignificant funding. Significant RS coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is largely PR driven and relates to funding and company aspirations, such as: "Garg, a former Google executive, is positioning his e-commerce firm Moglix for the GST's launch on July 1"etc.: Sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiranhota whose other contributions outside this topic have an appearance of being promotionally driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I did close this as delete, but an user asked for more discussion on my talk page
 * Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Speedy Delete As nominated earlier by me and others. Thanks for AfD. Light2021 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers. Moglix, a business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce start-up, is trying to use technology to disrupt the traditional distribution channels for industrial products. Recently, the B2B start-up which specialises in procurement of industrial products such as fasteners and industrial electricals, raised $4.2 million (Rs 28 crore) in a Series-A round of funding, led by Accel Partners, Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. It had also raised $1.5 million (Rs 10 crore) in November last year in the pre-Series-A round from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures. Ratan Tata also invested in the start-up in February. Founded in August 2015 by Rahul Garg, the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform. It has also partnered with manufacturers and distributors from China and Taiwan."  The article notes: "Founded in August 2015 by former Googler Rahul Garg, Moglix is focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe. It specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, fasteners and industrial electricals. ... Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia. With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.  ...  Moglix has a client base of 100+ companies in the manufacturing sector. These companies typically have a turnover ranging from Rs 50 crore to Rs 1,000 crore."  The article notes: "Moglix, an ecommerce company specialising in B2B procurement of industrial products, plans to expand its footprint. ... Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders. ... The company specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals. In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying." <li> The article notes: "When ex-Google employee Rahul Garg, conceptualized his startup in late 2014, he realized that the global trade of products was still operating in the old fashion, while the internet/ mobile, had led to democratization of the services and mobile app and advertising ecosystem. His startup Moglix, is a B2B e-commerce platform, which specializes in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants. ... The Firm today announced that it has raised INR 28 crores in Series A round of funding led by Accel Partners with participation from Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. Moglix has raised Pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures in October 2015 and an undisclosed financial investment in the company by Ratan Tata in February 2016."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * All trivial puff based on PR releases. It's known as churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC).
 * As usual COPY-PASTE job, without even reading or knowing where or what source are you copying from ? You seriosuly do not read any of these, just make a lengthy discussion to confuse people as if you are presenting some Detail in depth research or analysis, where you just go to links, copy and paste here. This is ridiculous.


 * FirstPost - Funding news seriously? Why to make Wikipedia, lets just make it newspaper?
 * Enterpreneur - Non notable media source as per Wikipedia, Paid blog written in the name of media.
 * Business Standard: Funding news and read the brochure in media " mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers"
 * Deccan Herald : another brochure in media.
 * Do you seriously read them ? Light2021 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Moglix participants who have not commented here:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment -- the above coverage is mostly routine funding news, puffery and PR-driven, as in:
 * "...focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe.
 * "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia."
 * "With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.
 * This is just from one piece. The above details also highlight just how insignificant the company is (from 2 to 7 people; series A funding; etc). With this amount of people, talking about "disrupting" an industry "across the globe" is peculiar, to say the least. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There's definitely coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is too promotional and poorly written.  But that's an argument for editing, not for deletion.  I see precisely the same points being made as last November's AfD. (Including my own.) Seems to me they ought to lead to the same result. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Responding to a ping based on commenting at first AfD. My !vote remains the same here. There is in-depth coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH such as this one in Entrepreneur (written by staff writer) and the ones analyzied by above. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Entrepreneur Article Seriously? Not even notable media as per wikipedia guidelines. Its like paying someone to write for yourself in a Online Blog? anything else you found in media, In-depth? Light2021 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and this is said with a heavy analysis of sources, see the fact 3 sources are in the current articles: All about funding and money reports (and that's considering one of them is Entrepreneur!) nothing significant for what we need here and it's said so in the WP:NOT policies. WeC:3 never at all compromised with their "national publication" coat because this would mean WP:COATRACKing; the Entrepreneur article is indiscriminate coverage about information anyone could find in a press release such as where when and how it performs its business. What we also apply here is WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, meaning we are not a webhost for whatever the company please to advertise or for its clients, therefore saying we should repeat them is completely inapplicable. Sources above #1 is from a trade-consumer publisher requiring their financial numbers and the specifics (no one knows the company numbers best than them) and #2 is similar except with immediate PR-like paragraphs for each part: Numbers, CEO quotes and their locations, clients and services, same goes for #3 until we find #4 is literally a Q&A profile with the CEO from a trade publisher. These are in fact not sufficient for GNG considering they are primary-sourced information therefore not independent (In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying Promotional, anyone?), especially since the oozing similarities in articles were aired months apart. SwisterTwister   talk  21:00, 5 July 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.