Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreataGlobal

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KreataGlobal

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The included articles from India are repeating company PR, with the only claim to notability being inclusion on Facebook’s list of 'Preferred Marketing Developers.' On its own, this does not meet the threshold for notability, and a search turned up no further RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA with a name similar to the company, so article is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A quick news search reveals sufficient coverage from top caliber sources such as Times of India, Reuters, and the Economic Times to establish notability. A possible COI is not relevant toward notability, and it takes two minutes to read to article and determine it is not promotional. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ThaddeusB The news releases mostly tells of it buying 2 start-ups but nothing else about the company is mentioned. It may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON and may not pass WP:NCORP as the news references you have provided may be trivial and will require additional sources for citation. I have no objection if you can go ahead and add some more sources to make it notable.Lakun.patra (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the coverage is irrelevant. Reliable source coverage is reaiable source coverage. As far as saying "nothing" about the company goes, buying competitors, signing contracts, opening new offices, etc. is what companies do. (Your statement is also untrue, as some of the articles do give background info about Kreata Global too.) I think you misunderstand the definition of trivial coverage. Trivial coverage is a sentence mentioning so-and-so company in an article about a larger topic. An article about the activities of a company can never be classified as "trivial coverage". Finally, adding more sources to an article does not make a subject notable, the existance of said sources makes it notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the coverage is not irrelevant. WP:CORPDEPTH states that a range of reasons/content including "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" are trivial coverage. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. I suggest you point out a specific source or sources which you believe represent significant coverage and that pass WP:CORPDEPTH. As I state above, I found none.Dialectric (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is semantic confusion here, probably caused by me... The reason for coverage is not relevant, the depth of the coverage is. "Brief announcements of mergers" doesn't mean stories about mergers are automatically excluded, but rather exactly what it says: routine, brief mentions of such announcements do not convey notability. I'm not sure why you bring up articles sourced exclusively from quotes, but that is exactly the same idea - they have zero depth of coverage.

As to the actual, relevant question... This is no reasonable way anyone can exclude the Reuters\VCC article as being trivial coverage. Likewise for the Economic Times story. Both provide in depth coverage of Kreata; both are top quality sources. The fact such coverage was prompted by an acquisition is not relevant in assessing the quality of the coverage. (Dozens of more sources are various other aspects of the business can eaisly be found - these are simply the first two high quality links I came across.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough RS coverage to meet WP:CORP, e.g. [1] [2] [3] Note, however, that the Reuters link [4] was actually provided by VCCircle, not Reuters, and so is of questionable reliability. Everymorning talk to me 02:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but there is no reason to believe VCC is an unreliable source. It is an Indian business news company with editorial control and partnerships with major news providers. Accoridng to our article "VCCircle is one of the important voice of the industry". The fact that Reuteurs chose to print it (they don't blindly print all VCC authored stories) suggests Reuters also deemed the news notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' On all the searches i see : "Acquisition of Flamingos - Flamingos is given more importance than Kreata Global". "Facebook Preferred Marketing Developer - Its an award it got only but doesn't say anything about the company" "Buys a new office space in Kochi". Thats all?? All that has been mentioned in the and still its a stub. So expect Facebook what all service lines does it deal in?? What is the Employee metrics of the company?? How much revenues does it generate? What is its operating profit? What is its history? Any other updated news in the recent time?(FB news was in 2012). Where all does it serve??? I am virtually getting no idea of what more content can be added.Audiences are more interested in the above mentioned things rather than where it bought a new office. Acquisitions are needed in an article but only a single Acquisition can not make an article. There is practically nothing as of now that can be added to the content of the company so that it doesn't remain a stub. I quote "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". The creator of this page is also a WP:SPA. So if anything relevant about the article is added it might not be referenced and will require additional citations which we don't have any as of now. So what is the point if we cannot provide something substantial in an article except some trivial acquisition in 2012/13.Wikipedia is not a place for definitions or news releases. If any one does provide relevant sources then i have no objection to it remaining an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakun.patra (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, nor is their a requirement for specific information to make a company notable. Attracting attention for acquisitions and Facebook partnership (or any other reason) is sufficient to warrant notability. And no, those aren't the other pieces of information available - just the easiest to prove notability. As has been proven, sufficient sources exist (it's not "too soon") - some subjects can only be stubs with available info; that is not an issue. All that said, the company is based in India. The specific info you desire probably exists in relevant trade publications, but not being from India I don't really know what those are (and they may not be in English, as it is not the most common language of India.)

As to the article creator's motive, AfD doesn't deal with conflicts of interest. The reason the article was created is not relevant to the subject's notability. Additionally, the author followed best practices and put the article through AfC where is was deemed sufficiently notable and neutrally written by a third party. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (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.