Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardback

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardback

Cardback (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)

As history and AfDs show, we can never take Indian news publications seriously or confidently to be genuinely independent and this is simply because of the blatancy of obvious paid advertising, therefore not making it independent news; this shows since, regardless of apparent publication name, the sources listed are all sources known and confirmed as "pay-for" publications, and the fact all of the contents listed only ever maintain the noticeable consistency of only advertising what the company itself would say. Not only is that one of the first blatant signs, but it shows the company literally makes all and any efforts at advertising, this article is an example.

Because we can no longer take these seriously, I simply searched for the sake of it, and then confirmed the same exact thing: Sources found "news" only maintaining the yet again consistency of advertising. Not only is all of this self-explanatory, but so is the fact the history explicitly shows advertising-only accounts heavily involved with these articles, enough said. Therefore, because of the sheer blatancy, the best we can at least accomplish is by not mistakenly calling these "news" or "independent publishing". WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, which are policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though we can argue that a lot of publications around the world can not be trusted to be genuinely independent and may be a source of advertisements, I can vouch for the fact that none of the articles / references in this article were "paid for", even if the publication houses in question have been involved in such activities in the past. Take for example references 9, 5, 12 and 1. Facebook would never settle for "paid-for articles" on the featured section of their developer website / blog. The other coverages by Economic Times, NDTV Gadgets and Business Standard are 100% impartial and organic - reading them in full would show that they have reviewed the subject of this article from a neutral standpoint. This article has been on Wikipedia for more than a year and is definitely not intended to be an advertisement, otherwise, I'm sure it would have been spotted and deleted by now.

Disclaimer: I am officially associated with the company behind this product and therefore am vouching for the claims made above and can confirm that they are true to the best of my knowledge. I am not the author of this article but it has been on my watchlist since the time it appeared in a Google alert result set by me for "Cardback", though I have never made any edits to it. Having said that, I am happy to work with the community to elevate it to Wikipedia standards, if needed. Nikhil Wason (talk | contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook writing about their own ventures is neither independent nor reliable, as they have a vested interest in promoting the startup's image. Ref 5 looks to be one independent review, which is good. The Economic Times is a known source of PR blogspam, however. For Gizmodo and Windows Central, Abhishek Baxi wrote two very promotional pieces in the sites' blog sections on the same subject He is clearly an involved party. Funding rounds tell us nothing and do not show notability. Jergling (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, put aside your apparent involvement with this company, I explicitly noted and we all know this a fact that all Indian news is advertising-motivated and quite blatantly paid for such advertising, therefore a comment simply claiming "There's news!" means nothing if said sources are in fact advertising. "Facebook would never settle for advertsing" yet Facebook is one of the worst companies currently hosting advertising as it is since they not only allow companies to say and start whatever they want, their businesses actually involve advertising!

Also it's quite questionable for there to be "I can assure their advertisements were not paid for", yet there's a long long history of such violations and blatancy therefore it's quite unlikely there would've been a one-time they had not, especially since everything else clearly states this company's only involvements have been literal advertising. Therefore, summarily, we have nothing to assure both substance and non-paid or non-advertising contents, because none exist. Also, with such blatancy, we make no compromises (regardless of willing improvements) and the only solution for removing such blatant advertising is to delete it. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my rationale above. I give this one an 8/10: follows my official PR-writing handbook to-the-letter but needs some fluff and meatpuppets to take it to the next level. Jergling (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Indian companies in thisfield go, this one is relatively minor,. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a serious allegation and a gross generalization to deem the whole of Indian media as a set of "paid media" and "pay-for" publications. Indian media is as "paid" as the media of any other country. Deleting an article solely on the fact that notability is not achieved because all references point to Indian media is not warranted and is unfair. There are several 'notable' Indian companies and personalities that have no reference or coverage in media outside India, yet they qualify for Wikipedia articles. I seek a more convincing argument to defend that observation and consequently the deletion of this page. Nikhil Wason (talk | contribs) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All I can find are routine and trivial coverage. Anup [Talk] 04:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Relatively minor and trivial on-the-go coverage.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:40, 25 November 2016 (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.