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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hibox

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

After the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibox, an existing draft was amended and moved to mainspace. The sources still look like the same kind of press releases masquerading as business reporting ("Throughout the day, the students, facing financial challenges, radiated happiness as they received mystery boxes containing a wealth of educational resources"), there still is apparently not a single news source even mentioning the founder Le Van Hai, which one would expect from a neutral source about the company.

It still has the same kind of sources which contradict the basic facts in the article as well, e.g. the first source[1] claims it isn't an Indian company but a London-based one which was active elsewhere before it started in India.

All in all, very fishy (articlewise and businesswise), much hype and not a lot of substance, almost as if it is some pyramid scheme or scam. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I request to some Indian author to check the article as it's in Hindi. Secondly, Times of India is the biggest publication in India and you are saying what they have written is fake? Seriously!! All the information provided above is all legit. Sparsh1220 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What they publish is often not something they have actually written, but content delivered and paid for by the covered subject. Fram (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article, which says they completed 500k installs on google play store and I verified on the playstore, they actually hit 500k, that's legit. Find the link here https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hibox.in

Also for the education article, I saw the video on youtube, where they have given the gifts to 250 + students, so that's also true.

So what information is fake?

I would request you to verify the information yourself and question accordingly. Sparsh1220 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that anything in the TOI articles is "fake", I said that it is just press releases, info from (and probably paid for by) the company, not independent journalism. The really dubious info is from the india.com source. I also wonder how "legit" it is to get 500K downloads and not a single review on the Google Play Store, but there may be a good explanation. Fram (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I guess you are not aware of this point that you need to have an android phone to check the play store reviews after the new update pushed from google where reviews are not available if the app is viewed from PC or IOS device. Also there are 1000+ reviews on the play store with 4.3 rating. I feel so you are really very confident without even actually verifying the information Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fram, I have read it thoroughly it cleared stated the company is from Vietnam, who founder/director is Le Van Hai, Confirmed from Vietnam's company verification website. And also the company's headquater is in London, England. I don't find anything fishy in the article read it again. or if the article says something I'll remove that article. I have written the information on what I found on the web. Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the article has been changed from what was there when I nominated it for deletion. And yes, I find it thoroughly fishy that all sources are from India, that ndia.com[2] claims "HIBOX is a global e-commerce mystery box company, headquartered in London. The Vietnam branch was established in the second quarter of 2023", but there are no sources to be found from anywhere but India. I don't believe for one second that an article which with a straight face claims that the start of some mystery shopping box application "has opened up opportunities not only for business but also for regional partnerships in India. With the rapid growth in the e-commerce industry, the entry of HIBOX opens up possibilities for collaboration between India and neighboring countries, which will boost regional economic integration. " or that "“HIBOX” is known for its unique mystery box shopping mode. Its entry into the Indian market symbolizes India's integration into the global supply chain." is an actual, journalistic article and not an extremely overhyped press release. And sure enough, the text is nearly identical to their "official" press release[3].

Not one source seems to be actually independent of the company, which is a basic requirement to establish notability. Regurgitated press releases only show that the company spends money on advertising, nothing else. Fram (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article source from abplive which you mentioned above is not even added as a reference here in this article, The information I have added in the article is what I have understood from the press release which are all organic. There is a proper author as well who verified the information and then published the same on India.com article. There are multiple six main articles I have attached in the references. India.com ( All the information is publicly available on google as well ). cnbctv18 ( All the information is properly verified ). Times of India 500k article. ( there is nothing in the article apart from that the app hit 500k ). Times of India education article ( All the information there is verified and legit, the ngo and school where they did the program is all legit, 250 + students got the educational gifts in mystery boxes ). Another TOI article where mystery box is added ( They have told about mystery box and added only that hibox is one of the platforms in India ) And the last is Economic times article ( It said the same that Hibox is one of the platforms in India). There are multiple paid ones from the company, but none of them are here. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also What do you want to say about this company right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyOperator Go through their article once and let me know, All the articles are explaining about how their system works. How are their page available on wikipedia? Do author's on wikipedia get paid from brands to publish article here?

I added such a basic information, Their is not a single exaggeration on the whole wikipedia article, but to you it seems all fishy. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And do let me know, if we can make some changes and we can keep the article or you want to be biased and delete it. Reply to this accordingly, I'll remove it from the mainspace and will bring it back. When accordingly this brand has tons of "Neutral articles" according to you Fram!!!. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added international references fram check now Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added three "EIN PressWire" sources, i.e. three press releases by Hibox. As it says right at the top of these "NEWS PROVIDED BY HIBOX COMPANY LIMITED". Value for this discussion: zero. And no, I didn't say that the abplive link is in the article, I said that the India.com article is taken nearly literally from the press release at apblive. I am not interested in discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have tons of shitty articles (or good articles on non notable subjects), none of them have any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Fram (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that it’s fake, but none of the sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV—The CNBC one is one sentence sourced entirely from Hibox’s own release, nothing near significant; The one from Economic Times does not mention Hibox at all, therefore cant be used in order to establish notablity; and the two articles for Indian news sources cannot be used for SIGCOV as there is a high chance that they were paid for, and this means that they fail the “Independent Source” criterion of SIGCOV. None of the sources are necessarily false, they simply do not indicate that the subject is notable for a Wikipedia article. Delete.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No substantive sources have been added to the article since the last AfD, nor have I found any that provide significant indepth coverage of this company/application. Sources are by and large about the mystery shopping concept. One of the ToI sources (not in the article) reports the donation of a few educational gifts by Hibox to deserving children.[4]. While commendable this can also be viewed as promotional. Why did ToI report this? Does it generally report such donations? None of the sources reach WP:NCORP standards in respect of WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a company seeking credibility and brand awareness; the WP:SIRS critera were put in place to prevent the use of Wikipedia for this. To be clear, I'm not accusing the article creator of intentionally promoting the company or in any way knowingly acting against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Unfortunately, the article has been brought back from the previous AfD draftify closure with little or no improvement in sourcing. Rupples (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Rupples, I also felt that promotional and have removed it. Sparsh1220 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 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.