- Cropin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The decision regarding deleting the the article was based on the initial 50 references which the article initially had and some participating editors said that those references may be significant and reliable but isn't independent. I added further around 20 references, mostly books and journals out of which I will like to highlight to the book Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good published by Springer which has a dedicated chapter on the entity (Chapter 15), to the Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has a detailed case study on the entity (in Chapter 7), to the report published by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , to the book From Food Scarcity to Surplus Innovations in Indian, Chinese and Israeli Agriculture published by Springer where the entity was discussed under the chapter Innovations in precise agriculture. In case the previous 50 references were not enough to establish notability, specifically failed to achieve the requirements of WP:ORGIND, these books and journal references are possibly able make the entity pass the requirement of ORGIND and overall notability, as per my understanding. I mentioned this in my argumentations in the deletion discussion but it was possibly missed by others and was never addressed by anyone. So, I decided to bring this to this board. Khemotaj (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Khemotaj (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Khemotaj:, please keep your arguments precise and short. None has the time to go through all your bulky comments. From the AfD discussion, it can be seen you came up with different set of references at different point of time. To that end, choose your final set of references that you think can be used to establish notability. Also state the associated notability criteria. Chirota (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiro725:, apologies for the long comments, but the intention was to illustrate the arguments. However, all what I have to say is already mentioned in this appeal.Khemotaj (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. By way of disclosure, I initiated the original AfD against the results of which this appeal has been lodged. The article has violated NPOV to an irremediable extent. I initiated the original AfD because I believed that from a neutral point of view, it is impossible to credibly assert that the article's subject is notable. The reference-bombing consisted of a large number of typically very shallow references in media (typically non-WP:RS and/or non-WP:SIGCOV), and there was a distinct lack of WP:DEPTH. In reviewing the sources cited above, I continue to hold this view. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ari T. Benchaim: Can you please explain despite the detailed coverage in Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good, Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat, From Food Scarcity to Surplus Innovations in Indian, Chinese and Israeli Agriculture and report published by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development how the entity is lacking WP:DEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? Violation of NPOV can be resolved by removing. Khemotaj (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I concur with the closer in that sometimes promotion and a non-neutral tone may require deletion of an article.
- The article was reference-bombed, which does not make the subject notable, but the appellant has missed the point if they think that adding more references will establish notability.
- Does the appellant, User:Khemotaj, have any association with the company or any conflict of interest?
Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: only one among the eight editors mentioned concern about promotional language, which as mentioned by closer can be resolved. The majority of the editors voting for delete expressed concerns about the entity not having enough references that pass ORGIND. I found some book and journal references during the last hour of the discussion, which weren't taken into consideration while providing final judgement. My query is very specific, if these references (please refer to DRV appeal ground above) satisfy ORGIND, if so, the entity is notable. The promotional language can be always remedied so is the refbombing as detailed in WP:CITETRIM.
- I don't have any COI with the entity. Khemotaj (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the deleted article. If I were reviewing it at AFC, I would use the template {{compsays}} and decline it as not satisfying corporate notability. If I had been participating in the AFD, I would have voted to Delete as not satisfying corporate notability. I see no reason to withdraw my Endorsement of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the appellant saying that the close was in error, or that they think that they can develop a better article? The first is the usual reason for a Deletion Review, and my opinion is that the close should be endorsed. The second should not simply be the basis for overturning a valid close; the appellant should provide an improved draft for review. (If the appellant thinks that adding more references will establish corporate notability, they have missed the point.
- Arguing with all of the editors in a Deletion Review is bludgeoning the Deletion Review Process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, if my comments bothered you. I replied to two of editor's queries here (including you) and asked a question to another editor. Will it be right to say I am bludgeoning? This appeal is based on the first possibility posed by you - my act of addressing the concerns of majority editors in AFD voting for delete was not taken care in the close, nor it is being considered now. My request is please consider it as it should be. Khemotaj (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep A proper source analysis was needed to be prepared to have an objective view in the case. As per the source analysis, the subject passes criteria of notability WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. Only those references were included in this analysis which surfaced in AfD discussion.
- I would lean towards keeping the article. - Chirota (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep extending my AFD stance here. There are references satisfying WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPENDENT, per WP:THREE the subject is deemed to be notable. Its also worth noting that one of the delete-voters got blocked for violating Wikipedia's TOU. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (delete). It was well discussed. Massively reference bombed with poor sources, and NPOV problems. The three sources in the source analysis above are not obvious. Recommend trying AfC following the advice at WP:THREE. Consensus was for “delete”, but maybe it could be called WP:TNT. It was not “no consensus” or “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Entirely ref-bombed, none of the references met NCORP guidelines. It is a heavily promoted company and the references used rely entirely on promotional materials. Even the new references which were not looked at during the AfD (which is really an attempt to re-open an AfD but lets look at them anyway) are flawed. For example, the Development Cooperation reference in turn copies material word-for-word from this promotional article. The book "From Food Scarcity to Surplus" relies entirely on this LiveMint reference which in turn relies entirely on information/interviews and fails ORGIND. The book "Socio-Tech Innovaion" is also entirely based on the founder's thoughts and memories and various announcements. Practically every paragraph references the founder - "According to Krishna Kumar", "Krishna Kumar explains", "Krishna Kumar recounts", "Krishna Kumar narrates", "In Krishna Kumar's word", etc. The "Innovate India" book also relies on a meeting with the founder. I'm unconvinced by any of the new references. HighKing++ 20:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
