Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapmyIndia

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MapmyIndia

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Mapmyindia has received adequate coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], in The Hindu, The Times of India etc. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at those:

[7] - decent coverage

[8] - this has no byline, it's about another product that has a strong tie to the subject, and it's likely a press release.

[9] - trivial mention, routine financial announcement

[10] - no byline except "special correspondent". This is a press release.

[11] - another press release by a "special correspondent", likely someone associated with the company.

[12] - not coverage of MapmyIndia, it's about Ola, and basically amounts to a trivial mention.

Except for that first one, I'm not seeing anything conferring notability here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: The list of sources I mentioned is most definitely not an exhaustive list (I don't even understand what gave such an impression). If you want even more in-depth coverage, you could've found it yourself in the time you took to analyze the (very preliminary) list of sources I provided. Here's two from The Hindustan Times, another from India Today, yet another from Daily News and Analysis, even more from Live Mint, one from Firstpost, an interview in the Business Standard, and even more can be found. If this article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't know which would. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are considered WP:Primary sources and cannot count toward notability. The same is true for press releases and PR pieces. You must also take care not to confuse WP:Significant coverage of the company with significant coverage of the product or the founder. It may be better to re-cast the article as about the product rather than about the company, if the product is getting more press than the company.

The first one you mention above from Hindustan Times is OK, the second one is a generic article about GPS navigation that merely mentions the company instead of covering it in depth. The India Today piece is basically an interview, and a brief one at that. DNA India is a press release, likely written by a company representative or a journalist paid to write it. The LiveMint article is a product review, not coverage of the company. First Post is an interview. The Business Standard one is an interview. These don't constitute WP:CORPDEPTH.

@Anachronist: By the way, you seem to be also confused with the usage of "special correspondent" in Indian newspapers, which just means someone employed by the newspaper to write a special piece. E.g., see the articles mentioning "special correspondent" in The Hindu. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confused. When an article reads like a PR piece, it's clear that the "special correspondent" was paid to write a PR piece. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in reliable sources are easily found as shown by Stringy Acid. Meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources presented by Stringy Acid are sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per google news received significant media coverage. References need to add as per WP:FIXIT --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a gauge for notability. A company can have a lot of mentions (see above) and still fail Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft space per my analysis of the sources above. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider also [13], [14], and [15]. --Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't count. That first one is OK though, as I mentioned above. The article is nearly blank now due to copyright infringement. If not deleted, it belongs in draft space for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources immediately above are most likely PR driven; the article is not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: as someone, who is still new to many rules/policies of WP, may I ask why you think the sources I cited are "most likely PR driven"? I mean, I don't have any particular affinity towards this particular article or company, but do you think that PR drive from a single company can convince so many newspapers in India (some of them with over a million circulation) to continue covering it for a long time? — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the article was intended as an advertisement, and the sources do look like PR. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I started writing my comment for delete, but after reviewing sources I have graduated to weak keep. Yes, even [16] doesn't have much - a quote from the company director, a brief description of service. Granted, the coverage is better than for most tiny startups, but is there anything that's not business as usual? Keep in mind WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. That's what I told myself, but then I looked at coverage in scholarly works and books. It is sparse but it is there.[17] looked promising but it is a master thesis and the quality if the tiny MMI paragraph suggests it was copied almost verbatim from some promotional brochure....). Still, Shreyasi Singh (28 October 2016). The Wealth Wallahs: The Story of India's New Wealthy and the company that built itself on managing their riches. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-93-86141-97-2. seems to describe it as 'leading' company in its sector. And John Mullins (3 July 2014). The Customer-Funded Business: Start, Finance, or Grow Your Company with Your Customers' Cash. Wiley. pp. 230–. ISBN 978-1-118-87913-9. seems to describe it as India's go-to company for this sector. Taken all together, I think this app / service has enough notability to get an entry here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 7 May 2017 (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.