Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qmamu


 * 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. Regardless of whether this could/should have been speedied, consensus is clear that sourcing concerns mean it does not merit a standalone article. Star  Mississippi  03:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Qmamu

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article had its A7 tag removed, but the company/product is plainly lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are of the spammy/press release variety. agt x 20:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. agt x  20:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep For what it's worth, I removed the Speedy A7 because the article didn't qualify. It could still be deleted after discussion of course.  I recommend at least looking at the APN News and Hans India articles.  With these two, the subject should pass WP:GNG.  Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.  I believe we will conclude that this a stub article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These two articles are extraordinarily similar and really feel like press releases. I can't speak to the reliability of these publications, but they seem fishy. agt x  20:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that both articles have almost the same content, have been published around the same date, and are pretty obviously promotional per their final paragraphs, especially "So, what are we waiting for? Let us take another step towards Atmanirbhar India by adopting the Qmamu search engine, which is dedicated entirely to India and its people." ~Styyx Talk ? 20:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps enlighten me as to how either of those sources - which are both a word for word identical press release, contribute to notability? PRAXIDICAE💕  21:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete APN and Hans India are both paid for blackhat SEO and utterly unconvincing as a source even if they weren't. This is nothing more than a poor attempt to spam Wikipedia about a non notable search engine and quite frankly the decline "based on the talk page" is mind boggling. Are we now supporting using WP for SEO, as the creator stated? PRAXIDICAE💕  21:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's confirmed, that would be reason enough to strike my position--but I'd need more than just a comment. Is there a discussion?  Consensus?  Source?  The Speedy was declined based on the reasons given at the talk page, an assertion of notability was present and the speedy was contested, which is generally accepted as reason enough to kick it to a discussion.  That's what we're doing here.  I don't see any reason at this time to accept the claim that the sources are not reliable.  If evidence were presented, that would change things.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the Wikipedia article The Hans India portrays the publisher as legit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And a quick look at the edit history shows many, many likely COI edits. Wouldn't go by that. agt x  16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the edit history and see no indications of such an accusation. Do you have any examples?  Is there any consensus for that conclusion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * edit by user with the same name as the page, another, and other, user who has only edited that page, another user who has only edited that page agt x  20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of editors on that page, it's had oversight. If the Wikipedia editor is related to the article subject, that's not a policy violation.  They "shouldn't" do it but they can.  Suspicious?  Yeah, but with other editors involved I'm not seeing it.  If you want to make that an issue, go right ahead.  I'm not the final decision-maker, but I find the "evidence" to be underwhelming.  Worst case, WP:COI is a guideline and generally is not a reason to delete an article anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that's not evidence to delete this page. It's evidence you shouldn't trust the Wikipedia article on The Hans India when it portrays the subject of that article as legitimate. agt x  20:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. I'm not convinced that The Hans India is not a reliable source just now.  I'm open to the possibility that it might be unreliable and I don't get it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. MarioGom (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom (by way of disclosure, I was one of the CSD:A7s). The Hans India is not WP:RS. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently cited references are also reliable and independent of the article secondary sources. Two of them are recognized news networks and the third one is a federal government agency responsible for recognizing corporates. Of course, more secondary sources shall be looked for and added . Anil Prasad 04:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apletters (talk • contribs)


 * Delete First off, lets pick the appropriate guideline. Since this is a company/organization, NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. So, lets look at the references....
 * This from APN News has no attributed journalist which means it is a "big red flag" and likely fails WP:RS. Given that the company was founded less that a month prior to this article, the very long quote provided by the founder and the promotional up-beat language, it clearly relies entirely on information provided (written?) by the company. It is certainly not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. It is also a direct word-for-word copy of the Hans India article so therefore cannot be "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Hans India (and also discussed above) is a word-for-word copy of the exact same article in APN News above. For the same reasons as above, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * The other references were mere mentions-in-passing, confirmation of the incorporation/existence on a government website, fails SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. Not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: As defended in the talk page of the article and seen in the initial part of this discussion thread, it is a stub for the listing under localized search engines. Many localized listings carry stub pages. It is appropirate too. I think, there is not much merit in discussing a stub as if a full-fledged article. It has citations as well --Anil Prasad 09:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Nonsense. There's nothing in our guidelines which says that a "stub" is allowed even in circumstances where the topic fails our notability criteria.  HighKing++ 11:31, 11 May 2022 (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.