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.
This entity's page is promotional one. Lacks indepth / significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hatchens Can you provide a more detailed source analysis? From just looking at the first few sources, they seem to be independent quality RS that would be perfectly suitable for establishing GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 12 Septembe*r 2021 (UTC)
Keep (1) The subject complies to WP:GNG being described by the country edition of Forbes as being one of the world's largest in its speciality. (2) Presently there are six reliable neutral independent sources cited whose subject is the subject of this article. So it complies to WP:SIGCOV. (3) The allegation that I am connected to the subject is false. I have no connection whatsoever. The allegation conflict of interest is unfounded. No WP:COI (4) The article blandly states facts based on independent reliable sources, it is not promotional. (Article creator) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4meter4 thank you for asking. This entity is very much similar to an article that I have mistaken to be notable and approved it. Afterward, the page got nominated for an AfD discussion and during that "discussion" many good reviewers (and admins) came and discussed the RS links originating from India and how companies are misinterpreting the notability clauses. You can access that discussion at the following link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplilearn (2nd_nomination). Now, let's focus on this page and list the RED FLAGS.
YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer)
YES
Can be considered as reliable but it's still is a part of a coordinated PR campaign because of sharing the same date publication with rest of the sources. I was not hoping this from The Hindu especially after following this closure Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#The Hindu
From another angle, if we consider this article as the "Interview of the CEO", then it definitely fails WP:ORGIND.
Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)
Now, here would be a question popping up in everyone's mind? Why we should consider this page a part of an elaborated PR campaign? My reasons are as follows;
Check the date range of the majority of sources - Aug 23 to Sep 3, 2021. Out of 6 sources, 5 shares that common date range - some sort of paraphrased/part-by-part news releases talking about the company's plans for the future (incl. CEO's interview). It qualifies for WP: ADMASQ - a PR tactic in which press releases are masquerading as valid/credible as news articles. So, the sudden rise of press releases disguised as credible news and at the same time launching of a Wikipedia page... simply raises major RED FLAG which we can easily designate as - "A well-coordinated PR campaign".
The second important act of smartness by the creator is to pass the entity's article as a stub. So, that if any unnecessary heat is generated it can be deflected via draftification. Also, a well-experienced editor will never create a page of the size of lede. He/she may experiment and expand it in the draft and then move it into namespace (AfC submission route can be taken, but not mandatory). But, this is the opposite of what the creator's editing history shows. - Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) On what basis is say TechCrunch considered an unreliable source? (2) The unicorn status obtained by the subject gave it media attention and eyeballs, like an Olympic medal or an Everest ascent, however the notability isn't the unicorn status but that it is considered as one of the world's largest in its speciality. Certainly encyclopaedic. (3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project and an eternal WIP, the subject is encyclopaedic, article has been created others will expand it. That is how it works. (4) Some may prefer the draft path, I don't, I use my judgement as regards to notability, and create article in main space, my choice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checked Mint's article there is said, "After struggling in the initial years, the Livemint website now gets more visitors (9 million more, per source) than the former leader, Economic Times." By what yardstick is Mint a market leader not a reliable source.? Thus the claims of lack of reliability need to substantiated to be taken seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay, the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created. If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Yogesh Khandke, for your kind information please refer to the following links; 1.LiveMint's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK; 2. TechCrunch's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK. Kindly keep a tab on "source reliability-related" discussions. It will help you in performing the correct assessments. And it's a humble request - please, refrain from having these kinds of articles created as per your "false assumptions". No matter what, how experienced we become - the WP:TEA is the best place to get our doubts cleared. Ask somebody and then proceed. -Hatchens (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You assume I haven't seen it, it doesn't mean anything, if anyone wishes to deem any source unreliable, it needs more than stray comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yogesh Khandke - if you are aware of the reliability-related discussions on your mentioned sources, and the results are inconclusive. Then, so what is the logic you used for creating the article in the first place? Just because "the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created" - your words. Is this that logic? I'm sorry for asking this question. But, here is another question (I'm unable to stop my curiosity, please forgive me) - "The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally, it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay..." Further, "If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill i.e., WP:CHILL." So, here are few more questions, do you believe in the concept of Wikipedia? or the Principles of Wikipedia? Or are you harboring any notion that editors like you are doing mercy to Wikipedia by creating such substandard pages? Or are you lending a "Hand of God" to the "subjects" like Zetwerk? Now, I'm extremely curious because at a personal level I never fathomed myself to be bigger than this platform. So, for me, your arrogance is very hard to digest. Technically, I surrender in front of your kindness and now please let others assess this page. -Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens One more time; chill, be civil, please, "let others assess this page" are golden words. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe. Good one. Indeed, very smart you are. I agree with your agreement on my golden words. -Hatchens (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am still considering what to suggest for this article but regarding the source analysis, Hatchens, in the RSN discussion on Livemint, the consensus seems to be that it is a reliable source. Also on what ground are you saying Business Standard is unreliable? There is no significant discussion on it. If anything Forbes India (post–2013) may be a problematic source here, note it's only a franchise over which Forbes doesn't have any editorial control. Tayi ArajakateTalk 09:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, note: The Indian edition of Forbes is run by Network18, which transmits visual programming for child consumption in their regions as well as musical programming (e.g., MTV India). It should not be a problematic source in this instance. Multi7001 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multi7001, the fact that Network18 also operates music and children's channels is not really relevant to the reliability of Forbes India. This is also a bit offtopic at this point, if you want to discuss reliability of particular sources, I would suggest starting a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I don't mind continuing it on my talk page either. Tayi ArajakateTalk 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How are LiveMint and BS held to be unreliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I slightly disagree with the page sources analysis by Hatchens. Some of the sources cited, including Forbes and Business-Standard, are reliable and demonstrate notability. Articles that read with a slight PR-tone but are published by news staff or editors are not different from other articles written by news staff. Many articles in news are written because of PR outreach or other similar reasons and hundreds of thousands of such links are in big Wiki articlespaces. Nearly all newsrooms have some extent of close relations with PR firms. OP clearly has very minimal knowledge of how journalism works. I agree, however, that TechCrunch and LiveMint are less reliable, but could still be useful to verify biographical information only if no other sources exist. Multi7001 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Livemint seems reliable enough for the information in question. That said, I disagree with the analysis done above. Also see coverage by CNBC TV18. LearnIndology (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've spent some time looking at references for this and the ones included here. First off - since this is a company/organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which provides more details on how to assess references to establish the notability of companies/organizations. Two critical sections of that guideline are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and especially the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND). I'm going to assume all references are from reliable publications. Hatchen's table above makes the same points but I've reframed the discussion to focus specifically on NCORP. With that in mind, I've redone the analysis table above:
No, it relies entirely on information provided by company employees. It is a (fairly standard for Forbes) promo piece to "profile" the company, vision, founders, etc.
In addition, as per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the requirements therefore meeting CORPDEPTH but failing ORGIND means that the references may not be used to establish notability (although may continue to be used to support facts/information within the article assuming they meet WP:RS, etc). With the above in mind, pinging Yogesh Khandke who relied on WP:GNG and LearnIndology who only looked at Livemint from a WP:RS point of view and included another reference which doesn't appear to meet NCORP either. I say the topic is WP:TOOSOON but its rapid growth suggests it may soon appear in analyst reports on the sector and will more than likely be written about outside of company announcements and PR. HighKing++ 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, that is a good, informative chart. Just to be clear, most of those sources are not reliable nor should be used to establish meeting WP:GNG. However, Forbes India, LiveMint, and Business-Standard are useful for verifying biographical info, if no other sources are found. Multi7001 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Multi7001, at AfD I'm only concerned with whether the topic meets the criteria for notability and to a much lesser extent whether the facts and information contained within the article are accurate (and not just promo). Therefore when I say a reference "fails NCORP", I am not saying it cannot be used within the article, just that it cannot be used to establish notability. In effect there are two types of requirements for reference - one type for facts and info and another for establishing notability. GNG is a generic guideline for topics that don't have a speciality guideline (see WP:SNG) and NCORP is the SNG for companies/organizations. NCORP does not add additional requirements but it removes some ambiguity and confusion in interpretation and provides contextually relevant examples for applying the guidelines to companies/organizations. HighKing++ 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing, if you take a look at this page moved to articlespace -> Pamela Rai Menges, it apparently did not fail WP:GNG, however, it relies on similar PR coverage as this subject. IMO, Zetwerk should not be considered for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Multi7001, clearly you don't realise that the criteria for establishing notability for people is governed by WP:BIO and the criteria for organizations is WP:NCORP. These guidelines are very different and place emphasis on different aspects of requirements for establishing notability. The reason we have different guidelines is because a "one size fits all" results in some topics being overwhelmed with poor quality articles or promotional spammy articles. HighKing++ 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing, I am aware of the different guidelines. I was referring to the credibility of the sources, not the notability of the subject or the source's contents. Multi7001 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the appropriate page to discuss other topics. I was responding in the context of this AfD only. And the fact you references GNG which isn't the appropriate guideline for either this topic or the one you referred to. HighKing++ 21:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per HighKing's table ironically. The so called "PR/Announcements" are all different outlets covering the same stories such as Zetwerk becoming an unicorn or the company entering the aerospace industry, etc. The language used and details provided are vastly different in each of their articles, which indicates that the individual stories are being covered independently rather than the articles being reproductions of a press release and the like. If they were so they'd all more or less resemble each other but they clearly don't, the fact that the articles also have bylines indicates the same. Disincluding the interview based ones, most of these meet WP:ORGIND. I don't see any reasonable justification for claiming that everyone who has covered them is not independent or as was previously being claimed not reliable. Though honestly in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH the articles are pretty borderline but they do provide somewhat of an overview. Tayi ArajakateTalk 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Just to clarify, the articles actually say that the company and/or the lead investor made announcements/statements in relation to the "unicorn" valuation.
For example, the second sentence in the first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says Bangalore-based Zetwerk said on Monday it has raised $150 million in a Series E financing round. So there definitely was an announcement or Press Release. Later on in that same article there is also reference to a statement from Jeremy Goldstein of D1 Capital Partners.
The Business Standard article in very first sentence says Zetwerk, the world’s largest custom manufacturing platform, on Monday said that it has raised $150 million in an equity round led by New York-based D1 Capital Partners. Also note it was published on the same day. That's not a coincidence.
In tems of the move into aerospace:
The 2nd Livemint article says in the very first sentence BENGALURU: Zetwerk Manufacturing, a contract manufacturer of capital and consumer goods, on Thursday said it has forayed into aerospace and defence sectors to develop and build products and technology for Indian and global customers. So also very definitely based on a PR from the company.
All of the articles include the exact same information highlighting the "unicorn" status rather than the amount/timing of the funding and to a large degree the same tone and phrasing. Some of the articles include quotations from involved parties, some provide an additional boilerplate description of the company or refer to older announcements (also not "Independent Content"). I don't think your analysis stacks up very well when you read the articles in question but I just have to reject your vague dismissal with inaccurate summaries of the detailed analysis of sources. HighKing++ 20:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no, the articles don't say that it itself is the announcement. The presence of a line with an attributed quotation in the coverage of an event is a standard journalistic practice and doesn't make the entire coverage, non independent. Press releases tend to be short pieces with a disclaimer that it's one, certainly not bylined articles as they exist here.
As an example from the articles you picked out here, the Business Standard article has 4 paragraphs entirely composed of secondary description which bears no resemblance with anything on the TechCrunch article. The particular quotations in the articles are likely being sourced from a press conference. And no its not a coincidence that the two articles are published on the same day since you know they are covering the same event, i.e, valuation as an unicorn which is a newsworthy event in business journalism, perhaps the answer to your question on why it is being "highlighted" is somewhere in there. Same would apply to the Livemint article, which contains multiple paragraphs describing their operation.
Maybe somewhere there is an arguement for this being too soon and not being in-depth enough but the company is certainly receiving independent coverage. Your source analysis essentially boils down to describing all news coverage as non-independent, which doesn't appear very reasonable when one does actually look into the articles. Tayi ArajakateTalk 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tayi Arajakate, ok I'll bite. I've taken another look at the Business Standard article and I've tried to identify four paragraphs that meet your description. Paragraphs 1 and 2 contain the same information as the other "unicorn"-referncing articles with the same date/time. The next three all rely entirely on quotes from the CEO and their lead investor and therefore not "Independent Content". The next (beginning with "Zetwork has demonstrated") is also based on the announcement - that information is confirmed to have originated from the company in this article from the Economic Times. The next paragraph (beginning with "Zetwork's custom manufacturing platform...") is generic boilerplate and you can see it repeated in this Capital Quest reference on the same day. So that leaves the final paragraph which lists the investors included in the round and that information is also repeated in several other places. Can you take another look because I really think that once you have read the various articles from that date you will quickly see that they're all related and not one has any "Independent Content" which can be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has references by reliable sources that cover it significantly, however, there many need to be more reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It nearly meets the criteria: WP:CORPDEPTH but not WP:ORGIND. Multi7001 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references tend to repeat each other, showing their common origin in press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 September 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.