Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12Go (2nd 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. While a minority of editors feel that this company meets the notability requirements, there is a consensus among participating editors that the sources available do not meet the standards required under our guidelines for a company to have an article. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12Go

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Going through the sources: source 1 is a press release, source 2 is an obvious promo piece (just look at the author's other pieces), source 3 is a directory entry, source 4 and source 5/9 are routine coverage, source 6 leads to an error page and would be routine coverage anyways, source 7 is a press release, source 8 is another PR piece, source 10 is a "contributor" piece, not staff-written, and source 11 is the company itself. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Technology, Transportation, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the sources, in my opinion, The Pioneer (India) and FPJ are not PR. Favorable description is not always advertising. Source 6 opens perfectly via the archive link. So, the company occupies a fairly prominent position in the region and receives just enough media coverage. OmicronLib (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common for Indian media sources to launder PR as legitimate news coverage, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The FPJ source states at the bottom Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team. It is not a staff-published article. In addition, the Pioneer source does not have a byline, suggesting that it is PR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article has existed for several years in other language sections of WP. There are many sources there. I checked some of them with machine translation and they look good.

[1][2][3] OmicronLib (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't matter whether the same article exists in other languages; the English Wikipedia tends to have stricter standards than other languages. I didn't see any clearly independent, non-routine sources in a spotcheck of those articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant thing to 'see' is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ, which says:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?

No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

Bylines are not required, and if you've looked through an ordinary daily newspaper (on paper) and noticed how few of the articles have bylines (especially short ones), you might not think they are good indicators of PR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Omnicron. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per at least these two sources: [4] [5]. These sites are used hundreds of times in Wikipedia. Brosticate (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technode source doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND since it almost entirely relies on what the company has to say about itself: it mainly talks about the company's ambitions and future plans, as well as quotes from the founder. ~~Seat61 is an unreliable self-published blog.~~

It does not matter how many times editors have added a source to Wikipedia, that does not mean that the source is reliable. There are thousands of citations to Google searches in Wikipedia articles, even though Google is clearly not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Correction: Seat61 is a well-respected blog, but it is still only a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wait a minute, Seat61 is not an independent source since it has an affiliate commission scheme with 12go. We're back to having zero sources that count towards WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above; you can add a tag to the article if you'd like, but it seems to be an important enough company that we could fix the article instead of deleting it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant SNG is WP:NCORP and so we need multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS with WP:CORPDEPTH. That is to say we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources that provide deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The existence of pages on other Wiki projects will certainly not do. We have a source analysis above of all the other sources, and this analysis is correct. We need to bear WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. We do not have a single source that meets WP:SIRS, and votes that merely state that sources exist without showing why these meet WP:SIRS should be WP:DISCARDed. For those who no doubt wish to disagree with me, what sources do you think meet WP:SIRS? If there are none, this page should be deleted (again). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TTG Asia focused on the company i.e., non-trivial reporting - so not what we typically consider under WP:ROUTINE.
I also found additional En-language coverage:
Skift https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/
e27 https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/
and non-En editorial sources to add:
PassportNews https://passportnews.co.il/article/184890
TourMaG https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html
Per WP:BIAS, WP:CSB and WP:NONENG, Indian sources shouldn’t be discounted merely for their origin - especially for a company operating in India, with remaining standards WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
As for TechNode: I see no inherent problem with that outlet—this is precisely what journalism does, verify and synthesize primary materials and when it does so the result is a WP:SECONDARY source. LvivLark (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't filled in everything here, but it is clear these 4 new sources do not add anything that meets WP:SIRS. Have a read of WP:ORGDEPTH in particular to see what is required for companies. PR about the startup and company announcements will not do.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/	Unclear if this is off a press release, which would not be independent, but bylined Matthew Parsons. Giving it a pass on that basis	Haven't checked, but it looks reliable.	All we have is 12Go offers instant seat confirmation with the 4,000 operators, covering 50,000 routes across 26 countries in Asia. which is well short of ORGDEPTH	It's a news report amd WP:PRIMARYNEWS pertains, but is information about the subject secondary in a discursive primary source? It's moot since this does not meet ORGDEPTH
https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/	This is a PR piece for the startup.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			All it says is Ron Hoffman'The VP of Product of the tourism giant Agoda, is moving to the Travelier Group and will serve as the Group's VP of Product (CPO) and CEO of its subsidiary 12GO. Not ORGDEPTH, that is a passing mention.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			all it has is It has, in fact, just signed a partnership with the Thai OTA 12Go Asia, which has been offering cheap travel to Southeast Asia for 3 years and has customer service in 9 languages. - that is well short of ORGDEPTH

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The four new sources don't support notability and neither do the sources in the article. Agree with Helpful Racoon's evaluation of the existing sources and the table. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the company seems important" aren't convincing arguments to keep. Countglob (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The TTG articles are a pretty clear example of WP:CORPROUTINE as standard announcements, launch and partnership, the second blatantly based off a press kit given the reuse of quotes in other sources churning the same press kit. ROUTINE, which, additionally has nothing to do with focused on the company. I could find no better in the 173 results from ProQuest for 2008–2025. Given that the keep !voters have declined to explain why they have made the assertions they have, I can only conclude either a lack of clue on the relevant guidelines or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm a little mystified why one of the keep !voters bought up operating in India specifically when the company is headquartered in Singapore and primarily operates in Thailand. Yes, it also does so in other APAC countries, but India doesn't seem to be a major focus for them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Most cited sources are press releases, affiliate blogs, or trade mentions that do not show WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:SIRS... Publications like The Pioneer, Free Press Journal, CalBiz Journal, and Markets Insider are either syndicated PR or contain promotional content written from company material. TTG Asia and TechNode provide only brief, routine reporting rather than independent analysis..... Non-English sources listed in other language Wikipedias also give no significant coverage when translated. LexyNight (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article’s sources are mostly press releases, routine announcements and content recycled from them. None of them are independent and the sources in the AfD are of similar quality. All of them fail the WP:SIRS check Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.