Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One97 Communications (3rd 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. No prejudice to re-creation of a neutral article, provided in-depth sources, not based on press releases, can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

One97 Communications
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on probably non-notable company, from now-banned promotional editor. Kept earlier on the basis of multiple refs in Highbeam, but they seem all to have been multiple reprints of press releases about various funding arrangements.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/One97 Communications and Articles for deletion/One97 Communications (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.      </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One97 Communications to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Keep Circumstances have not changed since the first nomination. The company is 15 years old, employs 1200+ people and has sufficient reliable sources for inclusion, which is more than many other smaller company articles in the UK have. Note that One 97 is notable as the parent company of Paytm, which has never been marked for deletion. If this article is suitable for deletion then the other should also be deleted by default. NB: I have noted a tag on the article indicating a major contributor may be involved with the company, but does not indicate who, yet there does not appear to be a single 'major contributor' shown in the article editing history, therefore that tag is misleading and should be removed. As the Chinese company Alibaba Group only own 25% of the company then there is no need to redirect it to them, as it is not a wholly owned 'subsidiary company'. Tata also own shares and you cannot redirect an article to two others. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . The major contributor with a COI is User:BiH who created the article. SmartSE (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the info. I had not realised the article was created by a paid advocate! In the circumstances I will change my stance and support Delete. Regardless of what is on the article in my mind it is original research. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . If you have changed your mind, you should strike the "Keep" in your original comment. As for Paytm, that should be deleted as well, in my view. The usual story, 5-year-old start up referenced to a plethora of PR schlock, impeccably formatted and helpfully added by the same editor, who created One97. Observe this addition and what the Paytm article looked like just before his ministrations. Voceditenore (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Alibaba Group - Promotional article for non-notable company. <b style="color:#FF00FF">CookieMonster755</b> (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or at the very least redirect to Alibaba Group. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? They are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Are we deleting because it was from a now banned editor, it is promotional, or it is not notable? Press releases are often the start of news. If it is picked up by reliable sources, then I consider it a reliable source. If it says "press release" on the reliable source and references where it came from, that's different. However, seeing that many of them were picked up by reliable sources and written as an article is a different story. They have plenty of in depth coverage in reliable sources. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Given an AFD only occurred a couple of months ago, and nothing has changed, I think this nomination is borderline disruptive. If result is keep, this article should not be nominated again. AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely promotional and obviously  a case of someone 'mistakenly'  believing  that  Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not  understanding  the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial  networking  site or the Yellow Pages, and being paid for it.  Wikipedia cannot  be allowed to  be used for profit in this way at  the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that  dedicated users spend building  this encyclopedia which in  spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended  to be an additional business networking  platform or source of income. Whether the text  itself sounds promotional  or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption  of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional. BMK (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promo. NOT. In particular suggest something like raising the bar by e.g. CORPDEPTH excluding funding rounds per Articles_for_deletion/Circle_(company) so this can be made more clear. Widefox ; talk 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete just delete. Promotional article. Use WP:IAR to establish consensus that articles created by undisclosed paid editors will be deleted. J bh  Talk  23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to establish consensus to establish policy. That is an abuse of process, User:Jbhunley. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As when I proposed deletion the first time, spam about a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry User:Joseph2302. Did you miss the notable sources above that establish "significant coverage in reliable sources"? AusLondonder (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - same as last time per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a pretty serious case of WP:GEOBIAS. This is a fairly large Indian company, with thousands of employees, millions in turnover and significant coverage in reliable sources such as the daily Indian business newspaper The Economic Times. I ask all delete-voters here, would they nominate an American company in similar circumstances? With Wall Street Journal coverage? Absolutely shameful. The paid editing aspect is irrelevant, frankly. Clean it up if that is the concern. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Geobias may be a factor, or may be a red-herring: not all participants are American and Circle is US, so on balance I'd say evidence would say it's a red-herring. It's a face-value we've got to do something about the undisclosed COI corruption of our standards. We're not guided in this long-term aspect, just in normal day-to-day N.  Widefox ; talk 21:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not enough independent, in-depth coverage to warrant keeping. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:46, 21 September 2015 (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.