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 per WP:SNOW, noting obvious sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

PromptCloud[edit]

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

The company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and in fact I tagged this as A7/G11. My tag was removed multiple times by User:Jacobkoshy333 who very clearly has a conflict of interest. The references in the article are not reliable sources at all and I am unable to find enough reliable sources to convince me that the company is notable. Btw, this is an undisclosed paid editing case. See User_talk:Umais_Bin_Sajjad. I'm also feel User:Fahadmonibsiddiqui and User:Raj Bipin Bhatt have a COI here considering their attempts to "save" this article. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you Lemongirl942, whoever edits the article or tries to counter your deletion nominations have a conflict of interest? Please stop blaming everyone who counters you as COI. Humble request. I am just trying to help a credible enough article to get justice. Thank you. Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Special:Contributions/Raj Bipin Bhatt. It's apparent that you have a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942. Similarly, this goes for you too(because I see you deliberately & aggresively trying to delete this page). And as you see, I have recently joined Wikipedia, so my special contributions will increase by time. Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

No COI at allThe only intention behind my attempt to save this page is that I do what I honestly believe is right. I believe this page qualifies wikipedia's notability criteria and should not be deleted. The only conflict of interest I have with this is that this was my first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. I am glad that someone else has succeeded in creating this page. Now that I see some people trying to get the page deleted aggressively on baseless grounds, I had to react. I also think that conflict of interest goes both ways, If you say I am trying to save this page with a COI, you are trying to get this deleted with a COI. Hope I am clear on this Lemongirl942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Dear Lemongirl942, I appreciate your honest concern, and I also understand that we are all here to make Wikipedia an authentic destination to learn. I am a marketer by profession; however I truly follow the ethics when it comes to situations' as this one, and I would like to say that I have no COI for editing this page. I am also associated with Encyclopedia Britannica, which was the Google and Wikipedia from last 200 years, now they are digitising their content to get into business. I have benefited a lot from Wikipedia as any other visitor' who stumbles-upon the platform while researching for a query, mostly from Google, 65% to be closely precise. Despite being a frequent visitor, I did not contribute ever until I got interested in the concept of Crowd Sourcing, and realised my responsibility towards the community, I also want to be a part of WikiPublishing, as crowd-sourcing a book always fascinated me. So, I decided only 3 days back to start with a page called "Kharghar" as it is my favorite place and I happen to know a lot about it. Still, I added only 2 lines to start with. If you have more concern or doubt, please leave a comment. You are always invited. Sincerely, Fahad.--Fahadmonibsiddiqui (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Fahadmonibsiddiqui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt - quite apart from the aggressive attitude of the COI editors toward the nominator, I've just done a reference check - this is a blatantly promotional article, with most sources being bad. Promotional blogs, sponsored content sites, press releases ... I'm actually surprised there are a few sources that pass WP:RS. If this is kept, it needs to be cut down to strictly what's in RSes, and will be about a paragraph. However, given the aggressively promotional attitude of the COI editors, I'd advise it be salted as well if deleted, to forestall another round of this. That's the only reason I haven't just stuck a G11 tag on it - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless and shallow claim about COI **David Gerard Instead of blatantly referring to me as a COI editor, why don't you do some research and provide solid proof about this COI you are talking about? that apart, Can you pick one line from the article where it sounds promotional? Again, the references include many authority sites like techcrunch, did you pay them to be so sure about these being promotional references? Most of these references don't even mention the topic exclusively. I request you to please do a proper research instead of blaming someone who wants to improve wikipedia for the collective good as a COI editor. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]
- - Your editing history shows you quite clearly fit the definition of a single-purpose account. Perhaps this is out of the goodness of your heart - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have edited many other articles , this just happens to be the article I attempted to create as a new user learning about wikipedia. You can check my other edits too. And, I don't think I clearly fit that definition just because I stand for what I feel is right. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I asked raised a few questions about your comments on the topic, yet you only answered one which was about me. This feels more like a personal attack than a discussion about the topic. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - please, everyone take a step back. This is a discussion about the notability of the article topic. Let's keep it specific to that, yes? Has this topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? In comments above User:David Gerard mentions finding a few reliable sources. That is an indication to me that there may be a plausible case for notability. Or maybe not. A review of sources is required first... -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article - everything I didn't tag is plausibly an RS. So that'll be [1] and a passing mention in [2]. As I noted, if we cut it down to things noted in those that aren't direct quotes from the company, it'll be about a paragraph - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the VCCircle ref[3] is heavy on quoting company. There's also a tangential mention in the The Economic Times [4]. Without further sources, doesn't look like will pass WP:GNG. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This company is indeed popular and notable Hi Everyone, I can assure that this is a notable company in its field. I am a data scientist by passion and this company happens to be the leader in acquiring product data for enterprises. I am very sure about this since this is a field I have been interested in since the last 3 years. That's also the reason why I picked this as my first topic to create on wikipedia. I swear that I still don't understand how this article is promotional, I see only neutral explanation of the topic with some great references to back it. I request you to not act by your instincts and do a proper research before making these claims. I also don't understand why some users here seem to be bullying new editors on wikipedia by simply nominating whatever they edit for deletion. For example, I edited Nokia's page by adding a few lines about their return to the smartphones market and someone was quick to find and delete my lines from the page although it was totally relevant. I don'think any of the references are paid/promotional because, many sites in the list are authoritative and it would be like disrespecting such sites if you say they write for money. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as blatant advertisement (Services, History, Awards) and so that to not further waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain the neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman Which of the lines sounded advertising like to you? I am intrigued. And your two lines of comment without any substantial content seems like you're just ignoring your responsibilities and trying to pass your assumptions as judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to state that, the aggressive nature was showed by some of the moderators (several times, please check the talk page and you can see one moderator asking a contributor about creating an account for this purpose) & not me (a COI editor according to everyone). If we are talking about notabality of article then you guys can judge it all day but please care to explain the promotional content of the article. I seriously couldn't find any. However, I would like to believe that you guys are expert and know better than me, who has recently joined, you guys should be mature enough to handle such situations like a professional and not aggressively. Also, please stop calling me COI. This makes me quit Wikipedia immediately. User:David Gerard Lemongirl942 K.e.coffman 1Wiki8........................... -- Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article comes across as promotional. For example, it includes a list of non-notable awards, under "Awards and achievements":

2012: Nasscom's 50 Emerging Companies List^[1]^{[non-primary source needed]}
2012: Indian Industrial Excellence Award
2013: Microsoft Bizspark India^[2]^{[failed verification]} Startup Challenge Finalist
2013: Cloud Advantage Award for Best in-house Innovation^[3]^{[user-generated source?]}

References

^ "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Nasscom. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
^ "Microsoft's BizSpark to boost start-up ecosystem in India". Business Standard. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
^ "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved 27 August 2016.

This content is cited to primary sources and serves to promote the company; it does not add value to Wikipedia, per WP:PROMO. If Wikipedia is used for promotional purposes, it loses its value. I hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Couldn't find any promotional content at allAs David Gerard has said above, there could be more worthy references apart from them. It makes sense to remove the content that isn't backed by credible sources and keep what's left. It certainly is not a good option to delete the entire page just because there are a few not so great references. I would also like to bring your attention to the fact that someone has even tagged wikipedia's own references as not credible, so I stress on being logical here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coudn't find any reason to delete I still don't get it why it's being considered for deletion when there are enough trustworthy sources. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Never contributing to wiki again It is unfortunate that some people want this legitimate page to be deleted despite its credible references. I am not going to contribute to wikipedia ever again, only to be called a COI editor. I hope the admins look at this neutrally and do what's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The page should stay It does have high authority references that couldn't have been a marketing exercise. This does imply that the topic is actually worth having on wiki. Someone has to find more sources that the creator might have missed. It is a lazy work to evaluate the topic only based on the provided sources. After all, we are here to add value to the users of wikipedia and not it's not about judging based on presumptions. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Toddst1 probably couldn't find anything against the article, so he came up with an irrational and non verifiable duck theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per David and the obvious tag team bombing of both the article and this AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP; sources mostly fail WP:RS, and as such fail to indicate inherent notability. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - A standard WP:BEFORE search did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass the general notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as per David fails WP:NCORP mostly non-RS and attacks by SPAs on other editors. Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment going through and removing the tags on the dubious sources doesn't make them into good sources. Please review WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia pages aren't reliable sources? There were unreliable source tags on links to existing wiki pages, does that make any sense? Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia pages aren't reliable sources. This should not be a surprise to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROMO and does not meet CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Raj Bipin Bhatt is a Confirmed sock of Jacobkoshy333. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkoshy333.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 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.