Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXN (brand)

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. Star Mississippi 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXN (brand)

[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)

Upon a meticulous review of the DXN (brand) article, I propose it be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons:

Firstly, the article is excessively reliant on primary sources, including the company's own website, press releases, and internal documentation. This overdependence raises substantial concerns regarding the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Wikipedia's guidelines underscore the necessity of secondary sources to furnish an objective and thorough examination of the subject matter.

Secondly, the article is deficient in adequate third-party reliable sources that could independently corroborate the company's claims and establish its notability. For an article to adhere to Wikipedia's notability standards, it must be underpinned by significant coverage from reputable, independent sources. The present article fails to satisfy this criterion, thus undermining its credibility.

Moreover, the content of the article exhibits a promotional tone. DXN operates as a direct selling company, also recognised as multi-level marketing (MLM), which frequently prompts concerns about the legitimacy and ethical practices of such business models. The promotional nature of the article is likely to mislead readers into perceiving it as an endorsement rather than an impartial encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia's neutrality policy dictates that articles should not function as advertisements or endorsements. LearnologyX (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of the sources cited are controlled by the company itself. Of the rest, Direct Selling News is a trade publication; DXN's mere presence on their list could be cited in an article, but doesn't establish notability. The only significant coverage here is from the Sri Lankan Daily News; that article is archived here. I have concerns that this is undisclosed paid news, like is common in Indian media. It certainly reads like a press release rather than independent reporting. For non-cited sources, quite a few about the company's products' purported health benefits are excluded by WP:MEDRS. Something like this Elsevier publication (p. 642) is a good start, but even I don't think this rises to significant coverage, and it seems I tend more liberal than consensus on that regard. I do not know enough about accessing Malaysian media to know if we're missing quality sources there. Lubal (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creditability of Daily Express is in question when it is open to feature Video, Story on their website from the volunteers. There are two articles (1 & 2) published in the Daily Express that read more like press releases than news coverage. LearnologyX (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't mentioned the cited Daily Express source because I didn't think it did anything to establish notability, but I'm pretty sure it's just a repackaged press release anyway. Lubal (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Advertising, India, and Europe. LearnologyX (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The revision history for the article DXN (brand) demonstrates multiple significant issues that warrant its deletion. The article has been subject to numerous actions due to copyright violations, as indicated by the changes made to hide revisions under RD1 (Violations of copyright policy) on 11:21, 9 April 2021; 01:15, 8 April 2021; 00:08, 23 September 2020; and 14:16, 26 January 2020. Furthermore, the page was temporarily protected on 16:34, 27 November 2018, due to persistent sock puppetry, necessitating restrictions on editing to autoconfirmed or confirmed users. These recurring issues underscore significant non-compliance with Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, reliable sourcing, and adherence to copyright law. Given the repeated infractions and the need for administrative intervention, deletion of the article is justified to uphold the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, an attempt to clean up criticism was made in the past, which can be another sign of advertising and an effort to maintain a good reputation for the brand, which was removed from the article. LearnologyX (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2024 (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.