Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstaShop

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. There is a consensus that this company is not notable under our guidelines. Further owing to the socking and recreation issues, there is an argument to be made to delete, rather than redirect. If an editor wishes to subsequently make a redirect this discussion should not prevent them from doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InstaShop

InstaShop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Note: Personalwiki97 has made a blatant attempt to rig the result of this discussion by substantially changing Robert McClenon's contribution to make it appear that Robert said things very different from what he actually said, and by removing a comment by Adamant1. I have reverted Personalwiki97's blatantly dishonest changes, but I am suspicious that some other edits may have been sockpuppetry. It also seems likely that some other edits posted after Personalwiki97's vandalism may have been influenced by the misleading content posted by Personalwiki97. JBW (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Since I wrote the comment above, I have investigated further, and I am now certain, rather than suspicious, of sockpuppetry in this discussion. JBW (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InstaShop

Non-notable electronic commerce company. There have been two copies of this article, in article space and in draft space, and has been gaming of titles by changing the spelling. The draft has been declined twice. The article has been moved to draft space and moved back to article space. The article has been reference-bombed with non-independent sources, which on inspection all are press releases, interviews, or directory entries.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sourcing in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the page has been updated with new and reliable sources. Personalwiki97 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of independent reliable sources. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - User:Robert_McClenon has reviewed the sources well! Besides, I found Kathimerini, ArabianBusiness.com, Khaleej Times these recent sources on InstaShop. Mommmyy (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google search has shown that this Arabian company is notable to include in wikipedia. All most all the independent secondary reliable sources have talked about it with a significant coverage. It haven't see anything press in these newspapers company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.4.220 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— 102.91.4.220 has made no edits other than this one.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a notable company with more than twenty independent sources CNN [[1]], The National Newspaper [[2]], The Reuters [[3]], The Financial Times [[4]], The Gulf Insider [[5]], The Kleej Times [[6]], The Arabian Business [[7]] etc and all of them have coverage. It's a notable company, probably the nominator don't know Arabian independent sources Mukaigurin(talk) 22:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Delivery Hero as per WP:ATD or Delete.

I've copied the table from above and gone through all of the references from the article. The templates for tables all appear to be designed for vanilla GNG but for companies/organizations we have to look at NCORP which applies a stricter set of criteria especially for what can be considered "Independent Content". In summary, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. There was one article that potentially meets NCORP because the journalist provided their own opinion in places but the website is menabytes.com and I have a question mark over whether this is a reliable source. Either way, one reference doesn't meet the criteria and since none of the other references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any other references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I honestly don't understand how some of the above references can be defined as "FAIL" or "non-independent content". I agree that a few articles contain interviews, but in most of these (as specified in the first table) journalists provided their own opinion. I, therefore, agree with most of the comments here: InstaShop is one of the best-known companies in the United Arab Emirates with numerous accredited sources that talk about it. PS: by visiting the Delivery Hero page you will notice how Redirect InstaShop there would make no sense, as the big companies owned by this holding have their own page.Mahir1994 7:35, 4 Novembre 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comment struck JBW (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Mahir1994 has made no edits apart from this discussion and their user page.

• Delete As per Robert McClenon and HighKing. DMySon (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. The shenanigans with this AFD prove this is not a good faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article. MER-C 20:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and MER-C. Sources are spammy. Miniapolis 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - paid-for spam, non-notable company. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promospam, fails NCORP. Consider salting, given the nature of the paid promo and socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an advertisement, plain and simple. I would also salt because of the socking and UPE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Delivery Hero, which contains information about the topic. I support WP:30/500 or full protection for the redirect to prevent article recreation. feminist (+) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (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.