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 speedy delete. WP:G5 as a creation of Wesleyner7. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drip Creationz

[edit]

[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)

non notable brand sourced to press releases and fake sources masquerading as legitimate news outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company "Drip Creationz" has been significantly covered in reliable source. It easily passes WP:COMPANY and GNG. All references are from reliable sources and publishers such as International Business Times, The Statesman (Newspaper with 180,000 daily circulation), Deccan Chronicle (Newspaper with 1,333,668 daily circulation)

First reference is from International Business Times
Second reference is from Yahoo! Finance
Third reference is from The Statesman
Fourth reference is from Deccan Chronicle
Fifth reference is from Mid Day

As the user who has nominated the articles for deletion and said that the reference are press release is false, the company is featured in-depth by reliable publishers. Also the nominator's claim that "fake sources masquerading as legitimate news outlets" is not true. All source are genuine and reputed news outlet. As per Wikipedia criteria of notability for company, The company has Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Meme Lord 519 - (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statesmen is not a reliable source in the slightest, IBTimes publishes press releases and paid articles (as is the case for this source) without identifying it, yahoo is a press reelase, deccanchronicle is not reliable and also a paid for press release and same for Mid-day. This is the typical type of churnalism we see from many of these outlets, and it's fairly obvious these are paid for pieces. Perhaps you could also explain why a business that as far as I can tell only operates in the US is only being covered by Indian media outlets that are well known for their problem with pay-for-publication/churnalism? Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement is 145 year old news organization which is pretty reliable with a daily circulation of 180,000. Deccan chronicle too is well trusted with over 1.3 million circulation. Mid-day is reliable too. Technically speaking. Now coming to "paid article", theoretically speaking anyone can pay to journalist of NYtimes, BBC too, which are considered as a epitome of reliable source. The source are pretty reliable and not blacklisted on Wikipedia. There is no genuine proof or community census on Wikipedia that these websites are known for "pay-for-publication" or churnalishm. Also, there is no rule that the reliable source must be from the similar country of the topic.

As the Nomniator has said "it's fairly obvious these", I've just read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it's not obvious, as a nominator could you please elaborate? Also it's pretty racist to say that top Indian news website are not reliable and anyone could buy article in these site. Theoretically speaking anyone can pay to any publishers for coverage. Meme Lord 519 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you're also not new here but you should check out the difference between Statesmen's web edition and printed edition. One of these things is not like the other. But feel free to answer my other questions. The pieces you cited are all paid press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every publication has difference in their printed and web edition, Can you please explain how other sources are press release again? Meme Lord 519 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:RS and get back to me. Even if you weren't wrong about these being reliable, they're still press releases and at least 3 are clearly identified as such. Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Praxidicae's assessment of the sources. Why would a company that has no presence in a country be featured in their media? It makes zero sense, unless you factor in paid "journalism".

My assessment of the sources, for posterity:

The link for the IB Times source isn't functional, but searching on their website reveals this "article" that is almost (if not entirely) identical to several other of the sources.

The Yahoo source is *clearly* a press release published by "Accesswire" - From Google search result listing: "Our newswire features a comprehensive, flat-fee Press Release service. Generate quality engagement with real-time analytics to improve visibility and expand..."

The Statesman source has no by-line, is highly promotional with lots of marketing buzzwords and namedrops, and doesn't have any apparent tie-ins to any other content on the site, and strangely considers the founders to be all male. "The men behind this multi-million-dollar company..." when at least two of the three are clearly not. As such, it's a piss-poor marketing attempt by an outside agency, it seems.

The Deccan Chronicle source does not identify an author in the byline, which is not a good sign. In fact, there is an explicit disclaimer at the bottom, which states: "Disclaimer: This is featured content. No Deccan Chronicle Group journalist is involved in creating this content. The Group also takes no responsibility for this content." I'll give them credit for at least having some sort of transparency, which is more than I can say for The Statesman source.

For the Mid-Day source: Firstly, any article title that uses "ummatched popularity" is immediately suspect to me. Then the byline has "Partnered Content" in it (which is a code word for press release).

As noted above, several of these sources are nearly or entirely identical in their contents, which is another clue that we're looking at press releases, instead of legitimate news articles. Also, like the Deccan Chronicle, Mid-Day adds a disclaimer: "The article has been sourced from third-party source and Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. All information provided on this article is for informational purposes only." Anyway, the article itself has already been deleted G5, so this should probably be closed as delete in any case. Waggie (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Cabayi as the admin who deleted the article G5, perhaps they wish to close this. Waggie (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2020 (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.