Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW Pressery


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

RAW Pressery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Connected sources and news of fundraising info. No significant sources to indicate notability. fails WP:CORPDEPTH Mar11 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep I've done a bit of expanding to the article and included some non PR RS. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are multiple articles explicitly and substantively about this company from The Economic Times, which is the world's second-most read business journal, exceeded only by the Wall Street Journal. It would be good if the article could include more news media coverage, and I think some of the corporate partnership stuff is a little crufty, though the rareness of the celebrity endorsement seems valid, but I'd say overall it meets WP:N. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - was wondering if Canvassing applies here as the creator of the page contacted you here on your talk page regarding this AFD about a hour before you voted. Could you please reconsider your vote. Thank you   FITINDIA   19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it counts as canvassing; notifying the editor who approved it at AFC sounds reasonable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have removed the information about the fundraising by the company and its connected sources. Some of the other sources that have been used for citation include https://www.thehindubusinessline.com - A very independent and noteworthy newspaper website of the country, https://www.crunchbase.com/ - an independent, reliable website that tracks information about all companies using their own sources, http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in - an independent business Magazine's website, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com - (used in multiple citations)Economic Times is a section of the noteworthy and independent newspaper of the country The Times of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash1221 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: Akash1221 (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Keep: Checked a few more sources, the information seems legit on the brand and celeb endorsement. Citations like Economic times, businessline, also seem good enough. Can definitely work on improving the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  — Maniksha.sharma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the Keep !voters above have presented links to acceptable references and none of the references in the article itself meet the criteria. Specifically, the references are not intellectually independent (a key requirement of WP:ORGIND and rely on information/quotations/interviews provided by company sources. AfD is not a count of !votes. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * editors hsve mentioned specific sources used, particularly the Economic Times, so I think you're inaccurate in saying the Keep folks have made no argument, while you yourself have not stated *why* ET articles are not intellectually independent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , some the responses above demonstrate a clear lack of awareness of the criteria for establishing notability which can be found at WP:NCORP. The argument is not whether the *source* meets the criteria as a reliable secondary source. The argument is whether the specific article in question is "intellectually independent". It is not possible to examine whether a specific article is intellectually independent and meets the other criteria for establishing notabilty if there is no link to a specific article. All that has occurred to date are editors saying that the Economic Times is a good source. I'm sure it is. But that's not the test. Of the ET references within the article, this one fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies exclusively on an interview with Rakyan complete with the usual format of history/aha moment/funding/future plans/glossy posed photos/ (we call this type of article churnalism) and regurgitates company-provided info/data with no independent analysis/opinion and is therefore not intellectually independent. This next ET reference is also not intellectually independent as it relies almost exclusively on quotations and information provided by the company or company officers with not independent analysis/opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The celebrity is a regular contributor to the Raw Pressery blog and participates in promotion and endorsement of the product. This next ET reference is another piece of churnalism - history/aha moment/posed photos/funding/future outlook/ and again relies almost exclusive on interiew/quotations from Rakyan and peppered with quotations from partners and one non-notable commentator. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This final reference from ET is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. None of the other references are intellectually independent either as is clear from an understanding of WP:NCORP and specifically WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH  HighKing++ 13:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  FITINDIA   17:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, lacks in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was created by a undisclosed paid editor, or someone with a conflict of interest in violation of ToU. GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The article was earlier created by Maniksha.sharma who voted as keep above under Raw pressery, which was deleted under A7. GSS (talk |c|em ) 05:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Fails the strict requirements of WP:NCORP.Highking has explained it quite well.Anybody wishing for a source-specific rebuttal, feel free to ping me. ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Highking.Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fairly clearly a WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 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.