Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalaage
- 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) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Kalaage
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedcsp |username}}. |
- Kalaage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My PROD statement: Apart from the promotional undertone with which the page has been constructed, the page only poses as a platform for the company to get more users to sign up. As also seen in the company's site's main page where Wikipedia is mentioned under "Press Coverage", we have the reason to doubt that the creation of the article was bankrolled by the company itself. Additionally, the sources are mostly PR or "paid articles", whichever term works best for our understanding. As has been a practice here in recent times, we should stop companies from engaging in blatant advertising on Wikipedia. // However, after the evident pruning by the creator/editor, there is still the problem of PR as sources. The sources are PR because they only cover things that a company would know, as to what they are doing and what they are going to do. Moreover, don't understand why it's notable. It's just a startup getting funding from VCs, that's it. Again, the biggest evidence we have that this article only serves as a promotional bulletin board for the company is the company's website which boasts about it. This is something new and surprising. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
keepThe main source cited such as DNA
References
- DELETE: Subject lacks substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus fails Anup [Talk] 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)]
- delete - apart from the blatantly promotional text and circumstances of creation, the sources are entirely primary and a basic WP:BEFORE turns up only press releases, press release reprints and funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)]
- Speedy delete – adopt rationale by @David Gerard. Quis separabit? 15:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Just quoting another user's statement is not helpful here. Please furnish your arguments. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anup [Talk] 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)]
- @Nairspecht: -- do not strike anything written by another editor unless you are an admin with a valid reason to do so. Quis separabit? 13:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- To whomever it may concern -- my delete vote is based on the fact that the article is clearly an exercise in promotionalism, which is pretty much, IMO, what @David Gerard said, only better, which is why I adopt[ed] his rationale. Quis separabit? 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)]
Sorry! I understand, and I apologize to both Rms125a and Anup Mehra. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
- To whomever it may concern -- my delete vote is based on the fact that the article is clearly an exercise in
- @Nairspecht: -- do not strike anything written by another editor unless you are an admin with a valid reason to do so. Quis separabit? 13:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
*Improve I would say the claims of sources being PRIMARY are not justified as all the sources are independent of the company. And I would still consider keeping if improved in terms of Neutral PoV.
- Delete No significant coverage about the website itself. Created by a sock who shows clear signs of COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Assefme/Archive for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2016 (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.