Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrepInsta Technologies

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PrepInsta Technologies

[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)

This article reads like an advertisement and sources that might show notability are substituted for articles about the sources that would demonstrate that. It was previously in the AfC project but was denied 3 times before being moved to mainspace manually. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Websites, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I'm highly unimpressed by the AfC bypass after multiple declines, but the subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources, and appears to be notable. I just did a pass of the article to remove as much advertising and unreliable sources as possible — the prose is a mess, but at least we don't have a possible G11 deletion on our hands. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TechnoSquirrel69, which sources meet WP:NCORP/SIRS? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: The DNA, Forbes India, and The Hindu articles look like they show that the subject is notable. They all look reliable, and discuss the company in enough depth for me to call it significant coverage. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:32, 30 October 2023 (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⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I appreciate the new sources raised here, they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is difficult to tell a sponsored post from an earned post on Forbes India, but DNA is clearly marked as being written by "DNA Web Team" and The Hindu marked as written by "BL Bengaluru Bureau" which are sponsored posts. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's why those three sources looked like they contained a lot of overlapping material. I hadn't considered that they might have been sponsored press release clones. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNMall41's rationale above. Assuming the DNA and The Hindu sources are unreliable, the subject no longer meets any notability guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69:, The NEWSORGINDIA references are sometimes difficult to spot as they are never clearly marked. The U.S. has laws which require publishers to mark everything that is an advertisement, but I do not believe similar laws exist outside the U.S. For the overlap, that is also a clear sign as you will find similar pieces posted in the same publications listed in NEWSORGINDIA, all within months (or even days) of each other. Check images as well as the captions will often say "photo supplied by [insert name of company here]." This can indicate a PR campaign. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes, CNMall41 — the help is greatly appreciated! I'll keep this information in mind for future reference. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:11, 30 October 2023 (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.