Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepperfry

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. Ignoring the word in bold type before every statement and purely evaluating the strength of the the arguments on all sides, I see a clear case for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperfry

Pepperfry (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)

A company employee asked me for help about removing the advert tag but, because of the overly noticeable PR and its PR sources, I was certainly not going to remove it; in fact none of the listed sources are both independent of actually containing substance and then non-PR information. The article goes to every single specific there is to talk about the company, from its history, to its business and local activities, to its services and then to its PR partnerships and awards. None of it is improvable beyond convincing, especially if not only the listed sources being said PR also, containing only information about the company's investing, clients and business and financial achievements, my own searches of News and local news media are mirroring this, by having a noticeable amount of PR, republished PR, interviews, financial statuses, named mentions of other companies and people, etc. None of that is acceptable, and I'll even note this was deleted over 4 years ago as advertising, and then afterwards as a housecleaning G7. As always, simply because a major news source is listed means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and that alone, focusing with the one thing mattering to a company's clients and investors: advertising. Something else I will note is that the history shows only one thing and it's quite noticeable: company employees changing it and, in fact changing and adding since the article started in 2012, and that all suggests this is only serving as a business listing and nothing else, which is therefore unacceptable and is not open to comprimising at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - note the source analysis, with which I concur. This article is an excellent example of a WP:REFBOMB - the sources look good until you actualy check them - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All issues with this article can be fixed by normal community editing. Here are just a few starter sources of the indy/rs/sigcov variety:

• Pepperfry expects to break even by 2018-19 by Gireesh Babu in the Business Standard
• Pepperfry raises $31M to expand its online furniture sales business in India by Jon Russell in TechCrunch
• Pepperfry raises Rs 210 cr funding from existing angels by Madhav Chanchani in The Economic Times
• Pepperfry to open 10 more concept stores by December by Arushi Chopra in Live Mint
• Pepperfry loss jumps three-fold in 2014-15 in gadgetsnow.com
• Pepperfry launches experience store in Hyderabad by Varsha Bansal in The Economic Times

Now if this AFD goes like previous ones, the nominator will now respond to this !vote with a long-winded rant that again shows they do not understand what significant coverage is in relation to a company or organization. Go! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks are unlikely to convince. The nominator understands the issues with the sources, as do I, and it appears you do not. Your refbomb doesn't actually convince in any regard - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - It WAS a clear case of WP:REFBOMB, but I do not think it is not notable. A quick search shows us that it definitely satisfies WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It only needed some heavy pruning, which I think I have managed to do. All PR sites were removed and now it only contains links of national dailies and op-eds and interviews. So, I think, it is fixed for now. However, I agree with SwisterTwister's concerns of companies and brands who create articles here just for promotional and advertising purposes. The worse are biographies of clearly non-notable persons. But, I personally feel, that deletion is not always a solution when we are trying to create an encyclopedia. This article, moreover, needs monitoring for at least few weeks for fear of edits by COI and spammers. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This fails to address the problems described in the nomination, i.e. even as revised, these sources are all PR - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "these sources are all PR" does not make sense. In that case, is everything about a company, which is available online and on which Wikipedia partially (and heavily) depends on, PR? I do not think so. In such cases, where the web is infested with PR, it is wiser to be selective and create an article which only mentions it as an entity, as a tiny speck of existing Indian brand. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Adding, if sources like this, this in The Economic Times, this in TechCrunch, and a market report do not point to its notability and rational argument for the article's stay, then I do not know what we are all doing here. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, I am new at wikipedia. Is there anyway I can help improve this wiki? Tanyeezy7 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Sources are mostly typical PR spam (This section of Times of India looks like the Forbes spam blogs) but if it's actually India's largest online outlet for something, that could be notable. On the other hand, canvasing editors to grow your page points to very little independent interest. Jergling (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The significant concerns here are, 1, the fact the company has blatantly and openly used this article as a business listing and, 2, the fact that I specifically statdd: All sources I found were PR and that alone. It is quite unlikely anything else can be found because it's all fluff and puff, the listed sources above are that alone, and that's because I found then earlier myself. As such, there is not timeset for watching this article because the own company has been using it since the beginning and they even asked me last night to "simply remove the advert tag", now with all honesty, they at least stated how the article can be improved, but that in fact is unlikely because there has never been a clear case of a company actually willing to say no to advertising, worse in this case of course, and the fact of the sources clearly showing it, it's all information the own company wants to you, not what independent people should hear. In this case, also, the fact the quote minimal of all this is in fact both guaranteed as substantial and then non-PR, the company is noticeably eminent with its advertising campaigns. This article itself was, again, deleted as advertising befpre, and that says enough alone. Once we become a PR web host, including with any compromises, this encyclopedia is damned. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your points, but I don't see a constructive solution for this, other than scrounging the web for sources which are non-PR. I found few, which I have stated above, but still, there is all possibility that they could be PR. There's even a report which mentions the brand to be a leader in its niche. There's really no way to know for sure, now is there? It saddens me that the company has explicitly tried to use Wikipedia as a bulletin board and even asked you to do certain things. However, deleting pages because we are sceptical about a brand's sources despite it being a notable entity will result in a repository of information that is continuously losing its content due to the dawn of an era where companies engage in digital marketing. If we begin deleting pages and content like this, then soon we will be doing this for all popular companies, organisations, people... There has to be an alternative; just it's not been found yet. Conclusively, I still feel that the article should be kept as a basic (stub) article with only its primary info on the table. Monitoring pages have always been a battle, and we all know that. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes, it looks like 99% or even more sources available for this company is either ROUTINE coverage, or PR or reprint of the same. Still I managed dig out some sources that in my opinion do make a genuine claim of notability for subject under discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Anup [Talk] 17:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The claims of "if we start heavily deleting company articles", we'll then start deleting all major companies, that's too far-fetched, and no one is actually saying that here, because globally major companies would not dare be so blatantly advertising like this one, so they cannot actually be compared. Now, as for the sources, the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs, still not substantial enough; next, the Forbes is in fact the life story of the company and businessperson, so that cannot be fully taken as actual substance, the article itself goes to specifiy where its businesses are located and the specifics about that, that's advertising, because like everything else mentioned in this article, it's all business information only the company would know about itself, so that makes matters worse. The BusinessToday is also rather blatant with advertising intents because it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are, and also then goes to contain interviewed information. The last one, Times, is in fact some sort of advertising analysis about one of their company advertisements, and it's only a few paragraphs long (that's also if you're counting the bulleted information parts), so that's also certainly convincing. The Keep votes, after considering and noting all of this, make no substantiations or other convincing comments how and why we should not consider deleting a blatant advertisement and of which has persistently stayed and been used for exactly that, simply because "improvements may help" or "sources exist". Therefore, these few sources listed above not only come accompanied by the acknowledge all of this is still PR, everything from the article which includes its history, actions and overall essence being advertising, there's enough suggesting this is in fact best deleted, lest we become a compromised PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Well, that's slightly counter-intuitive, when Wikipedia guidelines themselves demand that sources have detailed info about the organization in question. And when it does have, it is mistaken to be PR. Going through your comment, you are contradicting yourself at times. Initially, you are arguing that "...the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs..." and thus cannot be used; your next statement "...it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are..." Isn't the latter what we call extensive coverage by news media about organizations? When a CEO of an organization gives an interview, you call it PR; when there's an independent op-ed about the company, you call it PR; when there's news about funding and investments, you call it PR - branding everything as PR and only that just because someone contacted you to get an advert tag out of the page is "wishful thinking" and not productive. If that is also seen as crooked advertising, then we will never be able to create a page about a corp here on Wikipedia again. In that case, like I replied to David above, everything about the company there is online would be PR, which does not make total sense. You dismiss my concern about deleting all pages about organizations as far-fetched. But, then, what basis do we have about the companies/startups that are coming up right now, which will become notable in the future? When creating articles for them, what sources do we use? Because, as per your claims, any source that mentions "...the life story of the company and businessperson...", "...where its businesses are located and the specifics about that...", and "...the company's thoughts and plans are..." to name a few are blatant advertising. We will never know for sure if a company is slyly engaging in PR and developed advertisement. I understand your angst regarding this article because an employee contacted you, but its fate should not hang upon your mercuric reactions. Again, reading your comments, it also looks like personal vendetta to me as in "how can an employee contact ME?" That is justified, but let's not vent that ire on an article, which is of public interest. I and other editors have already shown enough samples/sources showcasing that the company IS, in fact, notable enough to have an article. I agree that some sources are PR, but can't the article be pillared on those which are reliable and verifiable and ARE not PR. Considering that the ones voting this article to be deleted are only participating in branding each and every source as PR, I do not think that's enough material to delete this page. You are repeatedly using the phrase "a compromised PR webhost" to conclude what would happen. Can't I now tell you that THAT is too far-fetched? Basing your forecast on a one-time event? Finally, and I never use this tone, this discussion looks like an aggravated windbagging by a reputed editor because someone had the nerve to contact him to get a tag removed from a page. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores, and playing with a page (any page) is not a game. We are creating an encyclopedia here. If we give in to the intention of this discussion, I do not know what fate other articles await. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that all of the sources, although thin, are still unusable because of the contents they could contain which are PR. We ourselves have knowledge of what some of the obvious companies are initiating to have paid advertising and articles here, it's been noticed here at AfD, and thus, allowing such advertisements to stay including by saying they can somehow be improved, is still allowing these said advertisements. We become closer to a PR web host if we therefore allow any of them to stay or anything similar, which is why deletion would be needed. Also, satisfying that that's the expected information and therefore acceptable coverage about a company is in fact not acceptable, because that said information comes from the CEO, who of course is there to advertise the company and that alone, anything he says will of course advert-like and certainly are not words coming from the news source or journalists themselves. Therefore, it is not far-fetched that, each day, these advertisements are submitted and, at times, unfortunately accepted by users who are not experienced, that damages the encyclopedia itself. The claims that this article has in fact PR sources is a factual of course, yes, but we cannot accept it alone with the few acceptable that may exist, because it's still unbalanced weight and would still not be enough, given that nearly over half of the other contents would be nothing but PR, that's not quite an acceptable article therefore. To the "we will never know what PR plans companies have" is exactly why we should minimize and eliminate any PR we find, lest we should find the worst cases of these. Given my analysis above, what still stays is the concerns of unconvincing PR and PR-coated sources, which in fact are not usable because of the questionability. Something that we are noticing deeper and deeper is churnalism and the entire news media has been affected it in that companies are involving themselves in what is supposed to independent coverage, but it's affected by news media cutting budget costs, therefore it becomes company-supplied information. Also, I never said anything at all that I was out to remove this article and there's no need to make any such presumptions, and it's still contrary of what I stated in the AfD nomination above, but if I am out to remove something, it's a blatant advertisement which serves no other purposes than said advertising.SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a corporate blurb with no indications of notability or significance. The sources listed above are routine, PR-like coverage and are insufficient to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia works to an academic standard and accepting marginal sources and such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : A lot of promotional content has been removed and the topic itself is fairly known. Many reliable sources have covered it, e.g. here. Coderzombie (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion, as per the page's Revision history, and does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- indeed, the cuts were massive to get to a semi-neutral state. Here's another edit (after cleanup): diff. I'm concerned that, if the article is not deleted, nothing would prevent the article from reverting to its prior state and again volunteer editors's time would be wasted copyediting it or bringing it back to AfD. Accepting (now or formerly) promotional article on subjects of marginal notability is not in the best interest of the project. This is due to both promotionalism inherent in these articles and the potential time sink. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than deleting articles in entirety that attract promotional edits, various types of page protection can be requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is that the vast majority of COI editors are not IPs; they are registered accounts and would not be prevented from editing a semi-protected article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - Not only are 80% of the links listed actually repeated, the different ones are in fact still PR, in that they blatantly show what the company's own thoughts and plans are about its business, therefore this is churnalism in that the company simply supplied its own information for its own news, thus it's not independent and it's certainly not convincing. The other Keep vote above which states a Google Search link simply suggests looking at the, which I in fact had....in my own searches and I saw all of this was trivial news about trivial funding and financing, something I explicitly noted above in my concerns, so the vote of Keep simply citing news is not the same thing as actually convincing us why and how we should keep this with said sources. This BusinessStandard article actually goes to then blatantly list what the company's plans are, something not only the company itself wants to mention, but the only one who would ever know about said plans.; this same article goes to not only start with a flashy enticing image, it goes to start stating quotes only the company itself would say, therefore we cannot taken it convincingly or seriously. This especially is emphasized when this exact article goes to say "He hopes to have the company at $1billion. And profitable", that is not only blatant PR but it's also advertising to anyone interested, such as clients and investors, because no one would actually care to say that unless they wanted capital and financial gains. With this said, the thin Keep votes, especially the ones simply tossing links, but not actually caring to acknowledge the concerns in said links, because this BusinessStandard article goes to continuing stating "servicing the customer" and then finishing with the number of carpenters they employ and other information about that. Therefore these Keep vote still cannot honestly state that we can keep this article when all of the concerns have been stated here and they are facts. One of the above comments says that it can at least be heavily trimmed to nearly nothing but goes to actually then acknowledge that we are battling such articles and we "know it", so that's exactly why we should be better about not allowing sugarcoated PR such as these sources here, merely and unconvincingly suggest they may be enough. None of this is both independently substantial and then non-PR, therefore we cannot automatically and simply alone take it as acceptable sourcing because of where it was published, because with the contents themselves PR, it may as well have been a company press release, because those were clearly the intentions and actions of this. See ""We have set up our system in such a way that customers don't need to wait more than six hours to set up their furniture," explains Shah. And this is where their competition with Ikea will come into play. The Swedish company, whose basic mandate relies on DIY (do-it-yourself), will have to contend with a massive customer base, who are learning to live the non-DIY way. At a ticket size of Rs 18,000, Pepperfry sees profitability coming by the end of 2016. But for that the company will need to keep expanding its community of buyers." which is an obvious attempt at not only showing what the company has and is saying about itself, but to end the last sentence with basically "it's searching and hoping to establish buyers so it can better its company income", the fact that, as before, it explicitly mentioned about said company hoping to achieve $1billion; we are not an advertising platform and we should not allow ourselves to become one especially with such blatant PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The sources I provided above are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and they all provide significant coverage. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. These sources qualify that the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per NorthAmerica Pwolit iets (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A comment is not bearing the same weight if it simply says per the user, especially if the comment is not actuslly starting their own thoughts and concerns at least, the fact analyses have clearly shown the stated and serious concerns above, an article cannot be simply "thought to be perhaps notable". Because my analyses have been staunchly and clearly listed, no one here has actually adequately challenged them, because I have in fact shown the concerns of these PR sources, and if it's PR in and of itself, there's nothing separating that. Once we become a PR web host, bring used to host PR campaign articles, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, you are on a crusade to fix a Great Wrong and Save Wikipedia, we know. And every keep !vote here is not convinced by your arguments. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the comment immediately above is not in compliance with WP:NPA. I believe it's best that we keep the deletion discussions civil. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: striken, and continued on ST's talk page. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, ugh what was this? a newspaper ad? the language is so promotional and basically acts as bait to the reader. refs are of the same note. delete. Pyrusca (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the article's prose, When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you appear to be being deliberately obnoxious. This is not how to convince people of your case in a deletion discussion. You know better; please desist - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment is pure and entirely good-intentioned. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Prose can be easily edited in Wikipedia articles, and articles are often edited while being discussed at AfD. For whatever reason, you're reading into my post entirely negatively, but its intention is entirely positive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The templated suggestions do not appear to be appropriate in deletion discussions, as they come across as condescending (pls see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I've seen this done at least twice by the same editor, and I would echo DG's suggestion to please avoid this practice. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When the RSes are clearly running blatant churnalism, as they are here, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Agree with deletion of article. Another Highly funded, all news coverage clocked within the realm of misleading notability standards. Script given to media to write about themselves, their operations, investor relations and nothing else. one of the thousands heavy funded statup and nothing else. building wikipedia for its mere pseudo notability creations. Light2021 (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfixable promotionalism , and I am unsure if there are enough good sources for it to be notable in any case. The indian advertorial sources are not worth considering as reliable sources for anything at all. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are pretty bad. All the stuff in Economic Times is blatant redressed PR. Every single other source that I managed to look was using quotes by the company employees as story sources (which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND). More importantly this is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. Saying that promotional content can be fixed and putting the burden on volunteer editors is counterproductive. It is essentially encouraging the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. We don't want a WP:BOGOF situation. Once Wikipedia becomes a medium for promotion it loses its relevance as an encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Promotional content can always be toned down, and it has been a default activity ever since Wikipedia came into being. All arguments based on the idea that toning down content is counterproductive for the editors at large is not fully exposed to the realities and limitations of an open encyclopedia. Do consider WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:CABFIX. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What cannot be cleaned is when an advertisement is solely that, and therefore it's something to delete, not attempt to keep and "see if improvements can happen". Once we start questioning ourselves about that, we would overquestion everything in that case, causing excessive damages overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the article hardly looks like promotional to me. Some of the sources are, but the article, per se, is not. We are not questioning ourselves, but our intentions. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

*Delete. that we even consider articles like this is a compromise of WP:NOT. Looking at the article even if its cleaned up state, it's clearly a rather minor company that has managed to get some articles in Indian newspapers, and I consider none of them to be RSs for N in any field at all, as they are all very willing to print advertorials and press releases. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 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.