Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubique.com

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubique.com

Rubique.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically the fact that a company " is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The sources given are either press releases or routine announcements where the company is discussing itself, which the guidelines state is not sufficient. The sources also seem to be business or trade media, and not broader mainstream media, which the guidelines also suggest is helpful. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have struck my incorrect claim above; but I still feel the rest is valid. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep Hi 331dot, My humble opinion says Economic Times, Times of India, Business Standard are mainstream media in India. I believe PTI covering the company would make it notable enough? You think we need to add more references? Can I add them to the talk page of the article and you can vett it for me? Thanks, MuzzammilB (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@MuzzammilB: Hello. I am wondering who "we" is; please note that usernames cannot be shared or represent a group. Fair enough regarding the publishers of the sources, but the sources you offer are still press releases or routine business announcements. We don't need more sources, but more substantial sources. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: "We" meant everyone interested in the topic here. yes Yes, I am not sharing usernames. No wrong practices here. Assist me here - I can be wrong - As far as I understand even for stock market listed companies which make them listed, everything, they announce quarterly to annual results to M&As to public interviews; then will become routine announcements coveraged by these publishers. What do you suggest? I will try and find more substantial references and add them to the talk page. Request you to help me understand them better. Hope to learn from you and get better at editing. ThanksMuzzammilB (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak to every other similar page on Wikipedia, just the page in front of me. Each page is judged on its own merits as this is a volunteer effort among hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Inevitably some inappropriate pages get through and even survive for awhile. In reading the article, it seems to just state that this company was founded, changed its name, raised some operating funds, contributed to some other entities, and lists its offerings. None of that seems particularly remarkable to me. Has this company received any awards or recognition? Has its business strategy been discussed in depth by an independent source? Anything unusual about this company; its mere existence doesn't merit an article, there must be something else about it worthy of mention. Not every company merits a page here. I was also wondering if you are affiliated with this company in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: - Thanks for the pointers. I will try and find some independent sources from perspective of awards and business strategy. I understand your concern about me being affiliated with the company. Unfortunately . lot of people have tried to abuse the platform and your concerns are valid. Fortunately for me, I am not connected with the company. I am an interior desinger based from Mumbai and nothing to do with the company mentioned here. Just another volunteer but not so active and experienced like you. Still learning. Thanks MuzzammilB (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep Two rounds of funding, three years of existence, seven solid references. Better than lots of startups with existing articles. Rhadow (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with the "solid references" claim; they are all routine, brief(for the most part) business announcements, which the organization notability guidelines specifically state is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep This entity has been around for more than three years now and has received significant funding from VC and PE firms. I do not think this article deserves to be deleted considering that it does seem to have robust references such as Times of India, VC Circle, MoneyControl, etc. There is also some good information about the entity in the references cited and they do not read like run of the mill press releases to me. Having said that, I do think that there’s scope for content to be phrased in a better manner and for more references to be added over time.

Let me add something that I’ve been thinking about, I think we’re going to see more of such debates going ahead for two reasons. One, the number of entities coming up all around the world with significant traction from investors and prospective consumers will continue to grow. This will no doubt create an interest among people to learn more about them and in turn drive the creation of more Wikipedia pages. This is perhaps no more evident than in the advent of startups. And secondly, many of these entities will be based in and around a particular geography where the scope for citations will be restricted to a geo-specific media platforms. This is bound to increase discussions such as these on the veracity and authority of these platforms. In this particular case though, Times of India, MoneyControl.com, Press trust of India (Which is like the Reuters or AP of India) are as good a source as one can find with regards to entities based in India.

331dot, I would like to hear your thoughts on this FlyingBlueDream (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

My position is unchanged. My issue is not the sources themselves but what they print, as I state at the top.331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment There are two competing standards here: "judge each page on its own merits" and WP:GNG. The page of a similarly situated company, Helium Systems, was deleted last week after four years of operation in San Francisco and two rounds of VC financing totaling $40 million. I'll bet the money goes ten times farther in India, so they are the comparable. At that stage of growth, all you will find in the trade press is a few facts wrapped in a cushion of happy talk. Fine. I acknowledge 331dot's comments, but I'm not sure coverage by the MSM is any better. Take for example this daft article. In my view, WP synthesizes a view of these nascent companies better than the press. WP often mentions competitors, which NEVER appear on the company web site and seldom in the press. I would venture to say that it is a sign of maturity (and notability) when the press DOES mention competitors. It's probably time for an essay on startups. Rhadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment I have added a few more sources on the talk page after the discussion. Thanks,MuzzammilB (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

References

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.