Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivigo


 * 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. There's reasonably clear consensus to delete, even after evaluating the sources found by. I see that Draft:Rivigo redirects here, which seems to be a violation of WP:CROSSNAMESPACE, and in anycase, WP:G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) applies, so I'm going to delete that too.

There were a couple of suggestions to salt this title, but I don't see any consensus there, so I'm not going to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I never noticed this before, but the nifty javascript automation tools found the redirect and deleted it automatically. Software making my life easier.  How about that?  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Rivigo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertisement. Trivial references- - just announcement and PR. Based on the information provided, thee's no reason to expect better. Recreated several times., by the same single purpose account  DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is true that I have made a few modifications to the draft but that was to incorporate all the suggestions given by the editors. I removed all the content that was deemed as promotional. You can see from the history why each edit was made. The sources that I have used are reputable. I have just made another edit and cited another source. Requesting you to review the same. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt, if it's been repeatedly recreated (I couldn't see that in the logs?) per . &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * it had moved back and forth from draft to mainspace, but never been actually deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- strictly promotional. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please let me know which part of the article do you believe is promotional? I have just stated the facts with references. It does not even have any part which shows the company in positive light. Please let me know so that I can improve upon that bit. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There exist various articles on Wikipedia which have a similar structure to the article under discussion. Hiree, Peppermint Hotels, OYO Rooms, Treebo Hotels, Future Supply Chains, TempoGo, Credihealth to name a few. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a list of other articles that can be nominated for deletion :) in the meantime, allow me to direct your attention to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which applies to your suggestion. Many thanks! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 20:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per your suggestions, I have edited and tried improving the page. Requesting you to check and provide your feedback. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A topic must reference multiple independent sources to meet the criteria for notability. The sources listed do not meet the criteria. The content of this article at the current time is, for me, a secondary issue. For example:
 * This firstpost.com article relies on an interview and information provided by the founder and this type of article and format is often referred to as an "advertorial" - that is, an advert posing as an interview/news. It fails WP:ORGIND and is not acceptable to establish notability.
 * This hindustantimes.com article fails for the same reason.
 * This business-standard.com article also fails for the same reason.
 * As does this Bloomberg article
 * And this americanshipper.com article
 * This thehindubusinessline.com article is debatable but in my opinion it squeaks by and is acceptable. Be aware that other editors may feel that it fails because it only mentions the company in passing and does not discuss any facts or information in relation to the company or its business.
 * In summary, there is only one (weak) acceptable source listed. Multiple (two at a minimum) sources are required. This dealstreetasia article might be acceptable - it appears to qualify as a reliable secondary source but I would be more satisfied it another editor confirms this to be the case. If another source can be found, I'll likely be satisfied and will change my !vote to Keep. -- HighKing ++ 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the detailed information regarding the criteria. Much appreciated.
 * I have added a few references as per the guidelines provided by you. I request you to check if these are satisfactory. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Preferably, avoid any sources that contain photos and quotations from the company founders or other company officers, or sources that use any "announcements" as news stories (as they're simply rehashing Press Releases) including articles with phrases like "Rivigo announced" or "The CEO announced", etc. Avoid announcements of funding. Avoid announcements of people being hired or fired. Avoid lists such as "Top 10 companies that will definitely go big" or such stuff. Sources must be "intellectually independent" and sources that wholly rely on information from the company and their officers do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The new sources you've added all fail for one (or more) reasons as listed above or in WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. Also, always attribute an article to where it was first published. This article might appear "intellectually independent" but it is copied from this article and the author is an employee of Rivigo. -- HighKing ++ 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you one again for your patience and your assistance in improving the subject under discussion.
 * I have removed the previous references and added three new ones which I believe fit the bill. I request you to please check the last three references in the list. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, in my opinion, perhaps the second one of the newest references meet the criteria. The indiatimes.com article doesn't as it is a selection of profiles of "startups" including Rivigo - I regard these as advertorials as each profile is complete with photo-of-founder and with headings like "X Factor" and "Moonshot Year". The livemint article is potentially OK - even though there are quotes from a company officer, the article appears intellectually independent and doesn't appear to be an advertorial and provides information on the usage of FASTags. The Bloombergquint article is only a mention in passing and fails the criteria. So I would say you have two weakish sources (but I'd prefer to wait for feedback from other editors on those sources before !voting Keep. For now, I've withdrawn my Delete !vote). -- HighKing ++ 10:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your prompt response, for making me more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, and lastly for improving the draft on the subject under discussion. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further comments should evaluate the sources found by Nirmit Arora.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALT, WP:MILL, and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SALT - I am unable to understand why this article should be salted when the article has never been recreated. It has moved between the draft space and the main space after incorporation of the suggestions made by the editors.
 * WP:MILL - Again I fail to understand why the subject under discussion is common or ordinary when there are sources which state otherwise. For example, the pact with the government or the introduction of FASTags.
 * WP:SPAM - The only reason the I believe this can be considered as spam is due to the consecutive citations at the end of the article. Those were added during my discussion above with user HighKing. I will remove the unnecessary ones from the article. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss new sources Ammodramus mentioned
 * Delete despite heroic effort by article creator. The sources are just lacking in terms of breadth and depth to show meeting GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all, and the subject is just not encyclopedic. If anything, the content is more promotional than when DGG tagged it. One would think AfC would set higher standards than to loose this upon article space. Nice catch by in sending it back to Draft space back when. Not sure WP:MILL applies-- one need not be "run of the mill" to not meet inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google search turned up this piece in Economic Times, covering Warburg Pincus's investment of $75 million in the company; the authors of the article appear to be regular Economic Times contributors.  Warburg Pincus discusses the company on its own website.  A short piece in Mint, and similar pieces in other Indian media, briefly discuss Interbrand's inclusion of Rivigo on their 2017 "Breakthrough Brands" list.  I think we've got enough attention from wide-circulation Indian media to meet WP:GNG, and enough detail to support a modest article without relying exclusively on company sources and echoes thereof.  Ammodramus (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  19:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the sources listed above mention the subject in passing; this is not SIGCOV that discusses the subject directly & in detail. Funding news are rather routine. Still "Delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * UNCHANGED PER K.e.coffman/Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still Delete as the sourcing lacks depth of coverage now as it did previously. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Same here No change in my !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I've struck my Delete from earlier and regardless of the "quality" of the article, the topic passes as there are multiple independent sources available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 15:20, 5 June 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.