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. The presence of independent sourcing gives enough merit to the "keep" side to justify that argument even though the article is underdeveloped in its current condition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Grofers

Grofers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Just deleted comment on Talk page. Light2021 ( talk) 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete and I would've nearly suggested Salting because this was speedied once before, and this is clearly part of an advertising campaign (see Draft:Saurabh Kumar, Draft:FITSO and Draft:Fitso, as they contain nothing but advertising, which this article itself is, the article is only barely about 3 years old and all of the listed news are about its activities and funding alone, there's no substance from any of those, because they are all advertising the company one method or another, and they are clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients, which is something notorious for not only this field of business, but the entire scope overall. The article itself is overspecific, as are the articles, with things only the company itself would know, and that's not surprising, considering it's been noticeably touched by SPA accounts, and that's not even saying a lot either, considering the article itself has basically stayed the same. Once we begin to at least soften and allow any advertisements, regardless of what sources are listed or how numerous they may seem at first, it still boils to advertising and it's something we should be ever so careful about, lest we start becoming a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Regardless of intent, this has enough non-trival coverage from reliable sources to easily meet WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Something that we as an encyclopedia choose and are obligated to choose is whether we firmly and clearly say No to any shoehorned attempts at advertising, or we go with a blanket of "If GNG is satisfies, we keep", because it's quite cunning how advertising and its essence becomes so heavily involved and staunch about these articles, that we ultimately have to think differently, lest we become troubled about choosing what actually matters, and this is: Not accepting or being otherwise manipulated by advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I completely and totally rewrote this article prior to the AFD being filed. The charge that this article contains "clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients" is absurd. In no way is my rewrite intended to help this company obtain investors or clients. I could care less about the company's success, and I'd be awfully surprised if a venture capitalist ever turned to Wikipedia for ideas on where to invest. This article meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which is why I think it should be kept. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

No investor seeks wikipedia for investment, it is definitely not just that. Search Grofers on Google, what comes on right corner. It is Wikipedia page for such company profile. Because that is the power of wikiepdia notability, that is the reason such organizations are using wikiepdia for their promotions, even if its just one paragraph. People do not need to open wiki page to see what is exactly written there. That is how the Wikipedia becomes misleading and definitely helps them to get higher ranks online (just little impact though). nothing to do with the investors or success of any startups, it is about credibility of encyclopedia that Wikipedia maintains. It is not for building company profile. Surely it does have impact on consumers, their peers, even if its slightest influence. Just the information. Light2021 ( talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - What these improvements actually go to show is worse....in that they emphasize the company information and PR listed worse, in that the sources, again, are PR and PR alone that they blatantly contain information the company is listing about itself, sentences such as " "After a year of rapid growth, Grofers aiming to achieve operational break-even by year end" is something they would only say, because it so clearly states what the company's plans, regardless of where it's listed, because that's the company's PR essence alone. The following articles go to continue containing such blatant sentences like that, another says "Grofers has had a good run so far, aims at....at year end", not only are these 2 different articles, dates and places, but they contain the same exact fluff and puff information, clearly amounting to one involvement, and that's the company alone, because they are the subject and they are the one best connected to the subject itself. The following articles only then go to show what the services are, what the services exactly contain and consist of and everything else, no one else would know that better than the company itself, and not to mention, it's their own business so they of course are going to motivate people publishing it and involved with making it noticed, in this case, republishing and sugarcoating it as "news". Not one part actually becomes both subtantial and non-PR-assesed, that's clearly because the only intents behind this and in itself were to advertise the company itself. To state the obvious, these articles not only contain specific photos and quotes about the company, that's what they largely consist of. Simply because a user uninvolved has now touched and changed the article, is still not removing the ever so noticeable essence of PR, and if the contents are PR-based, there's nothing changing that, so making any amounts of changes or moving, are not removing the PR itself. The claims of investors manipulating Wikipedia being "surprising" are not actually so, because that's what these companies in fact want, but as long we bar those attempts and any sugarcoated attempts, it will not happen; this is a case where we would not allow it to happen, lest we accept this, despite what it actually is, a PR article. Once we at all start softening ourselves and compromise "PR republished news" for the sheer excuses that they come from a news source publishing this, this is no longer an encyclopedia, it's a PR webhost, and that's what companies enjoy seeing and attempting. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: If we don't accept sources such as The Economist, we literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. Perhaps that is what some people want--but it's not in keeping with our current policies. Try to change the policies if you want to, but we can't unilaterally discard available WP:RS because of "PR". Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Because Wikipedia is established with the consensus of not accepting advertisements and as should be the case of course, then that enables us to remove contents classified and listed as such advertisements. As I've said I including above, and I'll state it again: Merely having a news source is not a basis of keeping, especially if the contents themselves have PR and only information the company wants to says about itself; that exactly fits what the sentence "We remove advertisements regardless of whatever and whoever, at all costs", therefore there is nothing barring us from removing such articles, lest we allow ourselves to become a PR web host. Even then, with this said, we have established a noticeable consensus at AfD with this alone and it's not the end either, because od these same exact articles, therefore there is nothing to change if it's currently happening. To state things even better, the one source above is exactly what the company wants, since it goes to state what the business is, the services and anything else the company and its businesspeople would mention, therefore they have achieved churnalism by hosting it at a new a source. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

On "that is what some people want" to Safehaven86 ( talk) If we go by that logic or rule here, Economist, Time or major newspaper get published every day or weekly apart from their online version where they write every kind of article that is possible in huge numbers, Wikipedia will be flooded with such articles who get coverage merely as press or just being influential. Wikipedia will become a content marketing hub like any other blog or tech hub like Techcrunch, Inc., Enterpreneur or similar blog who publishes 1000 of articles for such companies everyday. It will mean we should write each and every article with One Paragraph on wikiepedia, They are already there, what is here to write about? We will lose the Wikipedia for its core essence of notability or things that really matters to the level that every child or person seeks Wikipedia because it stands for highest notability or most credible and transparent Encyclopedia on this planet. Such organizations are simply using this platform for their promotions and nothing else. Being popular or having advertised on various media or get covered by popular media does not make them notable. Even people get their Biography published paying to writers, it does not mean each and every Biography stands for the notability. Or simply it does not mean these media are wrong, they are also commercial in one place, so giving them 1 space in a lifetime does not hurt much. Other than credible media is not interested in any of these organization for their significance, as it is clear the way it is covered by such media. On the other part literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. I disagree, my selection of AfD is definitely not Microsoft, Amazon or Smaller significant ones. So Wikipedia will still have many or thousands of notable as they stands. I am not nominating each and every articles written from Tech world. I had to explain here as I think above comment intend on my AfD selections. I understand we can not make Wikipedia as Newspaper, where such company has nothing to write but one paragraph. Imagine what would happen to Wikipedia if they are publishing 100000000 articles only on such companies. It will become another website for Content Marketing. Complete misuse of Wikipedia and its sole purpose. they are not volunteer who are spending their time to make it better, they come here to publish only such articles and go away, even some of them are getting paid as Wikipedia article writing. You can search Wikipedia Content Writer, many will be there. (Please note that It is not intend to you. It is general statement as we already know) Light2021 ( talk) 05:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: meets WP:GNG. Pratyush ( talk) 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Laying off people from company with grand funding and grand mistakes. Articles cites its employee strength with this news (Reference 1). It seems the complete failure and still this company want to brag about it and adamantly wants to use this platform for such degree of promotions. Check the founder page, blatant & highest degree of promotions Draft:Saurabh Kumar. Wikipedia is not a space of dumping high failure with grand funding and laying off people and still getting bragged about the startups you have started. similar grand failure written like a saga PepperTap Leave something worth to be here, than such promotions (it is enough to have Wikipedia page itself). this is about encyclopedia not dumping your grand mistakes to build personal portfolio for the future funding. Wikipedia gives the highest edge for such companies building highest degree of credibility/ notability online which they are definitely not. Even its just a paragraph to write about else Getting funding from A - B- C -D? is there anything else to write about this startup? what they really achieved so far being creation of encyclopedia material. This is not some profile to write when someone gives you money in a huge amount so you can become encyclopedic significant. Let them become significant first to write about here. Whats the hurry? Light2021 ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The Keep vote is quite thin, especially with only citing WP:GNG, since I have not only laid my exact concerns above, I have stated that no convincing, regardless of whatever or whoever, is a compromise for accepting advertising PR. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I completely appreciate with regards with references and efforts put from your ends, and I have done the same before the AfD as this might be popular in media or highly funded but unconvincingly non-notable Encyclopedic material as per the highest standards made by Wikipedia itself. We can keep going on writing or mentioning these articles as News source. Read the content of each, laying off people, getting funded, there is a competition, hiring people, firing people. once in a lifetime coverage by The Economist or major media. All these passes sources. Just because they are heavenly funded and can get coverage on major news and have the influence to write about daily operations, does not make them encyclopedia notable. There are thousands of company operations covered by all major media some way or other. Does that really makes them imprtant here? or you just need to be elite and funded to get media attentions. Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? Laying off huge numbers or people or getting funded by IIT people? Closing of business operations? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup who failed miserably in doing business? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not . completely respecting the whole community as a whole and definitely leave the verdict of AfD to community. Light2021 ( talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment and analysis'- Not only are these actually the links currently in the article and searches, but they are exactly what the concerns above have listed, that they contain such fluff and puff as "the company aims at....by year", that's not journalism and nor should it be, because it's exactly what the company wants itself, all of the listed sources have been analyzed above since that's what, is not only offered in the current article, but have been found by our searches; simply because a major news source publishes something, that is not at all actually saying it's news, because the serious depth of churnalism has getting been worse in that news are hardly actually now published without the company's involvements now, because of budget cuts and other financial hardships, the companies then supply their own information; even not so long ago, news was not this deep-fried in company PR, and, therefore, we should not succumb to what's happened to the news media, by then actually compromising and allowing such blatant PR and PR only serving for attention at its clients and customers. As mentioned above, all of the listed links above are simply trivial and entirely uncovincing information such as funding, financing, interviews, company achievements, plans and activities (this is especially noticeable by the excessively specific information of where and what the company is currently initiating, which, as always, would only come from one source, and that's the company itself), republished PR, etc. Therefore, we should not let ourselves be taken by anything otherwise without actually acknowledging the damages caused by these PR campaigns and persistent users hoping to get such unacceptable articles accepted. To then state the obvious, it serves no uses at all to actually relist these sources when I have explicitly analyzed them above including word for word of the worst PR information it contains, this itself is not an acknowledgement or consideration of the said advertising damages. It's easy to simply toss and claim that this somehow satisfy some guideline, but the important one of all, especially as an encyclopedia, is to not accept advertisements or anything about them, which this essentially is, therefore even if we had an acceptable article, which we have not, it would not be acceptable, because that would mean it consisted of advertising and that alone. Something that these companies have blatantly made obvious is that they will go to any ends to start an article, thus that's why they republish PR at major news sources, because they hope and they ultimately obtain freespace for their own advertising, something that therefore is noticeable with these articles, from the sources to information, therefore we must not accept it at any costs. Also, it serves no purposes or achievements for anyone else, but the company itself of course, by attempting to improve this at all, simply by the sheer facts that the current article itself is only advertising information, and I'll actually note the PR sources themselves now consist of over half the article; the minimal information listed as it is? Only what there is to advertise about what the company is and its services, literally, the entire article is a mere 2-paragraph business listing. The fact this is not even a 3 year old company, it shows that they are that persistent and staunch about looking for any and all paths for advertising themselves, they have changed this article itself, but never any actual substantial changes of course, because that's not the interest of a self-advertising company, and nor would it be, because it would mean it's contrary to what the company's thoughts are. There has been consensus here at AfD that India news media is largely notorious about pay-for-news, so that's not surprising when this company is clearly attempting exactly that: PR "news", therefore, we should not accept it lest it come with any such unacceptable attempts as these. Simply see this, this and this, not only has the clear PR information and sources stayed, and thus essentially not actually containing any other actual information (let alone substance of course), a template stating the article is not yet complete, is entirely contrary to the article, since simply some of the paragraphs were removed, yet reinstated with a "needs information" article, therefore there is in fact clearly nothing else to say about the company, and this has been emphasized by my analysis. When a company is that largely noticeable about obtaining and establishing investors and clients, it shows they are not even financially stable or independent thus their needs of seeking and establishing money and capital. When we become a PR webhost by any and all means, we're entirely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – All of the sources I have provided above (with one exception) are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. The exception is the The Economist article, which is not bylined, but this source is also independent, reliable, and provides significant coverage. Also, these articles are not press releases or public relations content, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. It is highly unlikely that Grofers paid any of these sources to publish these articles. Per the sources, the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There are more than enough sources for this entity to surpass WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Almost all of the sources being reviewed in here are English-language ones; there are many in regional languages as well (mind that top-2 largest circulating newspaper of India are Hindi newspapers, there are 3 in top-5.). Anup [Talk] 15:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per above. (wrote comment in a flow, meant to !vote keep). Anup [Talk] 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

does this even count as a vote? Can you refer any guidelines where commenting below the Keep vote also means keep? Light2021 ( talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes, it does. Ask at WP:Help Desk for an unbiased opinion.

"wrote comment in a flow, meant to !vote keep -what part of it you did not understand?

Anyway, leave it up to closing administrator for what does my !vote referring to my comment posted few minutes ago constitutes. Anup [Talk] 04:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I highly believe the Delete votes have been cogent with the concerns listed, yet the Keep votes are not being as persuasive or specific about their votes, with some simply stating "Meets WP:GNG", but this is thin since the concerns especially about PR and the PR amount in the sources, therefore suggest there has not yet been enough consensus to suggest clear attention at all. Simply stating that "news" exists but not actually listening and seeing the concerns listed in those news sources, and why there are not as convincing as they may first seem, is also not the same thing as confidently showing us why we should accept them otherwise. I also still maintain that the article has not actually significantly changed for the better since simply some mere parts were removed, yet not only was the PR environment still there, it's actually being emphasized now by piling it and then changing the article to where it actually only focuses with such triviality. None of that can be taken seriously as "significant improvements or showing there's convincing coverage" if it's all simply meant to be swept under the rug and kept as tagged "needing improvements". Once we start being so oblivious and uncaring about PR articles and the advertising intentions behind these, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia that can be taken seriously. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of marginally notable companies. The only purpose for the article to exist is to promote the company. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oh come on, the topic clearly meets WP:N. If you feel there is a TNT case here, then fine. But WP:DIRECTORY doesn't even being to apply here. Hobit ( talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep sources are well above the WP:N bar. Hobit ( talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

There are NO significant value is added except mentioning same thing again and again. all the discussions had happened. it is mere attempt to save this article from deletion. and this is merely a exercise to extend the discussion. So there will be no consensus an d article will be saved. As done in previous cases. Very dangerous approach to save such articles from Wikipedia. It is to create confusion and nothing else. No Argument to study but just citing sources which discussed in details by contributors. Highly misleading Votes to confuse the closing debate. Done same with UrbanClap debate. Classic case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 ( talk) 05:47, 15 October 2016 (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.