Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneOTT Intertainment

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. After three weeks of discussion (with no discussion in a week) it's clear that discussion has stopped. Despite widespread speculation that there would be sources present, no amount of BEFORE/other research has produced them. There is thus a consensus to delete by participating editors. I will note for future editors, that because of that consensus, I will honor (and would ask other administrators to honor) a REFUND to user/draftspace if the requesting user has sources they believe demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OneOTT Intertainment

[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 NCORP. Created directly in article space. Sources are press releases, internal documents, and routine financial announcements. BEFORE search by a couple of editors have turned up nothing (in English) that looks like a notability reference. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's reason to believe that OIL is a big deal ISP in India, so it seems strange that we've been unable to find suitable coverage. This is definitely a situation where the 'D' in AfD should be seen as 'Discussion'. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is my default position, having been one of the users who helped with the BEFORE (String: "OneOTT Intertainment"). The main issue we have is that if there are any usable sources, they're likely to be in the native Subcontinental languages, and automated translation just plain does not work for them, making it impossible for us to assess them. We need users who can competently read the language to help search for sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - Since OIL is a big Internet Service Provider in India, instead of deleting the page we can edit the page and and add relevant sources, content to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilekha selva (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think jmcgnh started this AfD? If there are any reliable sources, they're going to be ones neither he or I can read. Automated translation for languages from the Subcontinent is generally illegible, so this AfD is partly to get some help from editors who can read those languages and thus assess sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 10:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to you point but as far as I went through the brand OneOTT is a well known Internet Service Provider. Our editors can help us find the reliable sources for the company. We don't have to delete them instead we can edit and update them with the reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilekha selva (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that is that citing reliable sources is our entire notability criteria. If there are no sources cited, then the article hasn't shown its subject meets notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that the organisation itself passes the threshold of notability despite references that are questionable at best. We do not delete articles about notable entities. We edit them. Note that there is a strong suspicion of paid editing by at least one editor whose edits to this article have been reverted, and that the probable status is logged on the article talk page. Note, too, that there is a desire by that editor to have the article deleted so that they can re-create it with some other facts and references. Note as well that there is a very good semblance of a legal threat (0.9 probability) and that the editor has been warned over it. Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must be operating on different definitions of "notability" then. Absent better sources, keeping it is out of the question. Again, please read jmcgnh's note. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 10:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sources may not be in English, and that we are unable to read them does not mean they do not exist. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read jmcgnh's note at all? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 10:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Blocked, not allowed to participate at AfD a part of Hinduja Group. It is business and economically significant company. it needs improvements not deletion. Light2021 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources you can cite that will allow us to actually keep the article? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 23:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Publicly Listed company - it passes Notability criteria. there are filth of startups with non-notability (2 employee counts) and few press mentioned (Eg, Tech crunch or Mashable/ Forbes blog) are covered in Wikipedia. just because they are from USA or covered by American media does not make anything notable. (No offense to anyone or any media, it's a different topic anyways). It is significant company based in India (over 100000 Employee count). and easy google search will give you coverage from major media outlets. as well as this if it helps to understand - https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/NXTD:IN & this https://www1.nseindia.com/live_market/dynaContent/live_watch/get_quote/GetQuote.jsp?symbol=NXTDIGITAL Light2021 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a subsidiary of the notable company it must meet NCORP on its own, doesn't it? Otherwise it's just a redirect to the parent. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is notable and various references have been added since the original AfD. Retswerb (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retswerb, The recently added sources are in the same vein as the existing ones - press releases. I've seen nothing yet that I would consider a notability reference. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simple. NCORP states there must be multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Nobody has located any sources and I have also been unable to locate any. None of the other arguments matter a jot until that first requirement has been fulfilled. It would make sense to merge this article with an article on the parent company, NXT Digital Ltd, except the immediate parent doesn't have an article. That leaves the Hinduja Group article which is the ultimate parent. Seeing as NXT Digital just gets a mention in a bullet list of companies, I don't see any need to merge this information either. At most, this company can also get listed in a bullet list if required. Topic fails NCORP, none of the references meet the required criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 30 July 2020 (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.