Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12Go (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

12Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Going through the sources: source 1 is a press release, source 2 is an obvious promo piece (just look at the author’s other pieces), source 3 is a directory entry, source 4 and source 5/9 are routine coverage, source 6 leads to an error page and would be routine coverage anyways, source 7 is a press release, source 8 is another PR piece, source 10 is a “contributor” piece, not staff-written, and source 11 is the company itself. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Among the sources, in my opinion, The Pioneer (India) and FPJ are not PR. Favorable description is not always advertising. Source 6 opens perfectly via the archive link. So, the company occupies a fairly prominent position in the region and receives just enough media coverage. OmicronLib (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common for Indian media sources to launder PR as legitimate news coverage, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The FPJ source states at the bottom Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team. It is not a staff-published article. In addition, the Pioneer source does not have a byline, suggesting that it is PR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article has existed for several years in other language sections of WP. There are many sources there. I checked some of them with machine translation and they look good.

[1][2][3] OmicronLib (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn’t matter whether the same article exists in other languages; the English Wikipedia tends to have stricter standards than other languages. I didn’t see any clearly independent, non-routine sources in a spotcheck of those articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Omnicron. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per at least these two sources: [4] [5]. These sites are used hundreds of times in Wikipedia. Brosticate (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The technode source doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGIND since it almost entirely relies on what the company has to say about itself: it mainly talks about the company’s ambitions and future plans, as well as quotes from the founder. Seat61 is an unreliable self-published blog.

It does not matter how many times editors have added a source to Wikipedia, that does not mean that the source is reliable. There are thousands of citations to Google searches in Wikipedia articles, even though Google is clearly not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Seat61 is a well-respected blog, but it is still only a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, Seat61 is not an independent source since it has an affiliate commission scheme with 12go. We’re back to having zero sources that count towards WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all of the above; you can add a tag to the article if you’d like, but it seems to be an important enough company that we could fix the article instead of deleting it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The relevant SNG is WP:NCORP and so we need multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS with WP:CORPDEPTH. That is to say we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources that provide deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The existence of pages on other Wiki projects will certainly not do. We have a source analysis above of all the other sources, and this analysis is correct. We need to bear WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. We do not have a single source that meets WP:SIRS, and votes that merely state that sources exist without showing why these meet WP:SIRS should be WP:DISCARDed. For those who no doubt wish to disagree with me, what sources do you think meet WP:SIRS? If there are none, this page should be deleted (again). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]