- 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. The creator of the article was indeed a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
GREENSOLE
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GREENSOLE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am aware that this article recently passed AfD but it was closed before I could comment. Clearly, this topic fails the criteria for notability as the references all fail the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and GNG. In fact, most of the references are churnalism. The reasons provided by the !voters in the original AfD indicate that they are unaware of that there is a higher standard for references to establish notability. The reasons continually reference "multiple independent sources", "legitimate sources", "the article is fine", "has enough coverage" all fail to address the content test which is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". For clarity, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP as follows:
- This from The Hindu Business Line is churnalism with the classic formula of; introduce entrepeneur(s); describe problem; describe solution; finish with forward looking statement; include photo. The article also relies entirely on information provided by the founders, there is no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This BBC article is also churnalism, relies entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Entrepreneur India is .. also churnalism and is also based entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Vogue India is yet more churnalism, based entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This blog (because it is a blog) is not regarded as a WP:RS
- This from DNA is also churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from The Better India is churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Ilaap is a promo for the company to encourage cordfunding. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This from LiveMint is an interview/description of a teenager that uses the product and explains the background of why it is important to her. But the information on the company is clearly provided by the company themselves - for example this statement:With the money earned from the sale, it (GreenSole) plans to run on-site surveys to find schools where students may require shoes (especially if the average income of families in that area is below a certain level, or if the area surrounding the school is rocky), create more comfortable designs and to finally recycle more footwear for donations. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Forbes fails WP:ORGIND.
My own searching for books and the other usual good sources yielded nothing. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing ++ 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I even can't understand why [user:HighKing this user] so curious to delete a notable Wikipedia article. It seems like there is some connection between User:KartikeyaS343 and user:HighKing.
| WP:CANVASSing. —— SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Note GRIPK has < 50 edits and clearly a Single Purpose Account as just about all of their edits was on this topic. I would further add that there may be an undisclosed Conflict of Interest. HighKing ++ 12:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I too have a strong feeling about COI and based on their edit pattern, it gives a sign of sockpuppetry from Wikibaji. KartikeyaS ( talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article name Greensole was protected from re-creation, so creating GREENSOLE was a means to avoid this protection. Also blatant advertising. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the excellent nomination, following which little is left to be said. Except to point out that, along with their SPA-status as noted above, their deliberate deceit in recreating protected material, their accusations of socking elsewhere, and notwithstanding their blatant canvassing immediately above, they surely an undisclosed conflict of interest. —— SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the analysis above. None of the sources pass the very low bar of WP:GNG or WP:42, all of them fail either independence, reliability, or significance criteria. -- Jayron 32 14:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per HighKing's commendably detailed analysis above. The sources do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so WP:NCORP is not met. GirthSummit (blether) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this is pure advertising propped up by a SPA. Agree with all the above analysis. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I already nominated it earlier but thanks to HighKing for the detail analysis. This capitalized name is used because Greensole has been salted for repeated spamming and also Greensole Foundation which was created by another LTA sock. -- KartikeyaS ( talk) 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per HighKing. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Nice bit of analysis, HighKing, thank you for the hard work. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as covert advertising. Thank you HighKing for ferreting this out. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm seeing no evidence of notability, just sources copying press releases and maybe other publicity. Maproom ( talk) 17:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per the nominator's thorough rationale. While masquerading as an article, it is thinly-veiled advertising with nothing substantive to show WP:NCOMPANY is met. -- Kinu t/ c 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The creator of the article was indeed a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
GREENSOLE
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GREENSOLE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am aware that this article recently passed AfD but it was closed before I could comment. Clearly, this topic fails the criteria for notability as the references all fail the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and GNG. In fact, most of the references are churnalism. The reasons provided by the !voters in the original AfD indicate that they are unaware of that there is a higher standard for references to establish notability. The reasons continually reference "multiple independent sources", "legitimate sources", "the article is fine", "has enough coverage" all fail to address the content test which is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". For clarity, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP as follows:
- This from The Hindu Business Line is churnalism with the classic formula of; introduce entrepeneur(s); describe problem; describe solution; finish with forward looking statement; include photo. The article also relies entirely on information provided by the founders, there is no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This BBC article is also churnalism, relies entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Entrepreneur India is .. also churnalism and is also based entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Vogue India is yet more churnalism, based entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This blog (because it is a blog) is not regarded as a WP:RS
- This from DNA is also churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from The Better India is churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Ilaap is a promo for the company to encourage cordfunding. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This from LiveMint is an interview/description of a teenager that uses the product and explains the background of why it is important to her. But the information on the company is clearly provided by the company themselves - for example this statement:With the money earned from the sale, it (GreenSole) plans to run on-site surveys to find schools where students may require shoes (especially if the average income of families in that area is below a certain level, or if the area surrounding the school is rocky), create more comfortable designs and to finally recycle more footwear for donations. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Forbes fails WP:ORGIND.
My own searching for books and the other usual good sources yielded nothing. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing ++ 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I even can't understand why [user:HighKing this user] so curious to delete a notable Wikipedia article. It seems like there is some connection between User:KartikeyaS343 and user:HighKing.
| WP:CANVASSing. —— SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Note GRIPK has < 50 edits and clearly a Single Purpose Account as just about all of their edits was on this topic. I would further add that there may be an undisclosed Conflict of Interest. HighKing ++ 12:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I too have a strong feeling about COI and based on their edit pattern, it gives a sign of sockpuppetry from Wikibaji. KartikeyaS ( talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article name Greensole was protected from re-creation, so creating GREENSOLE was a means to avoid this protection. Also blatant advertising. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the excellent nomination, following which little is left to be said. Except to point out that, along with their SPA-status as noted above, their deliberate deceit in recreating protected material, their accusations of socking elsewhere, and notwithstanding their blatant canvassing immediately above, they surely an undisclosed conflict of interest. —— SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the analysis above. None of the sources pass the very low bar of WP:GNG or WP:42, all of them fail either independence, reliability, or significance criteria. -- Jayron 32 14:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per HighKing's commendably detailed analysis above. The sources do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so WP:NCORP is not met. GirthSummit (blether) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this is pure advertising propped up by a SPA. Agree with all the above analysis. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I already nominated it earlier but thanks to HighKing for the detail analysis. This capitalized name is used because Greensole has been salted for repeated spamming and also Greensole Foundation which was created by another LTA sock. -- KartikeyaS ( talk) 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per HighKing. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Nice bit of analysis, HighKing, thank you for the hard work. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as covert advertising. Thank you HighKing for ferreting this out. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm seeing no evidence of notability, just sources copying press releases and maybe other publicity. Maproom ( talk) 17:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per the nominator's thorough rationale. While masquerading as an article, it is thinly-veiled advertising with nothing substantive to show WP:NCOMPANY is met. -- Kinu t/ c 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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.