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.
Fails
WP:CORP. Sourced mainly to SEC filings, and without sufficient independent secondary sourcing so as to establish notability, Article has been heavily edited over the years by at least seven SPAs and an account associated with the company itself, and most recently has employed a paid editing service, but all of these efforts have failed, as the sourcing just isn't there.
Coretheapple (
talk)
14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Ordinarily merger would be a solution, and at first I was inclined to agree, but there seems to be very little worth preserving here.
Coretheapple (
talk)
15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Linking to Bing search results showing non-notable websites and press releases is unhelpful. The company, to be notable, requires multiple secondary sources. As the editing history of this AfD will indicate, somebody associated with the company was so insecure about the fate of the article that it employed sockpuppets to disrupt this discussion, and now unleashed an SPA IP editor engaging in
personal attacks and
vandalism. You're employed or paid by the company, editing from one of the company's computers
"On advice from MyWikiBiz, this article has been sufficiently trimmed of the excessive marketing language. Disclosure: I am working from a Reliance Globalcom network". This was a red flag for proper scrutiny and not "wikistalking." And yes, the fact that the company, represented by you, can't bring the article up to Wikipedia standards is a good indicator that it just can't be done by volunteeers. I see from the edit history that the article was heavily edited by a succession of SPAs over the years
[1][2][3][4][5][6], as well as
User:Reliance.globalcom, so you're not the first, and yet the article still fails to satisfy
WP:CORP.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Please listen for minute, Coretheapple -- you might learn something. The link I gave to Bing News archives contains the following sources on the first page:
You spotted a couple of press releases, and you damned the entire library of sources. This shows that you are not fit for evaluating sources, due to your harassment and wiki-stalking of my edits today on Wikipedia. What is wrong with you? (Also, see below that your obsession with "sockpuppets" is also out of place here.) -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No, they're not notable and even if they were, what you cite fail
WP:AUD. Yes, I realize they're fine for you, because you work for the company. AfD debates are internal processes for Wikipedia editors, and are not a place for article subjects, their employees and agents to weigh in, even if they weren't being abusive as you are. I realize this article matters a lot to the company, because the company created an account to edit the article, and then, both before and after that account was blocked, dispatched a half-dozen people to create accounts to work on this article. Obviously Wikipedia is a high p.r. priority for the company. I get that. It's not uncommon, and I really sympathize with all the effort, but the sources just aren't there. They've obviously invested a fair sum of money in getting this article up and running, so the passion is evident.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Would you describe the
Wall Street Journal as passing
WP:AUD? If so, then there is
this. How about
Financial Times? If so, then there is
this. Do you see how silly you're beginning to look, Coretheapple? The company has laid telecommunications cables across entire oceans! Do you realize what a monumental human undertaking that is? You sit there with your arms crossed, saying, "Nope, that's not notable, because I've never heard of this company, and I'm in a butthurt rage about the editor this morning being smarter than me, so I CAN HAZ TO RETALEEATEZ!" Grow up, Coretheapple. -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
First, you've been around Wikipedia a very long time, certainly long enough to be familiar with
WP:NPA, and also to know that resorting to juvenile personal attacks is a sign of desperation. Those articles are so insignificant that they aren't even used as sources for this article. What's required is depth of coverage, not tied-together press releases and copying from SEC filings self-published by the company. I know you love this company dearly, and the company loves itself so dearly that it has deployed considerable resources to putting this article in Wikipedia and keeping it there. But it still has to meet notability standards. Let's see what independent editors, those with no stake in the company, have to say. That's why we're having this discussion. Remember
WP:DONTPANIC?
Coretheapple (
talk)
17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Let's get one thing straight. This whole nomination is a personal attack, Coretheapple. You know that. The only reason you came to the article about Reliance Globalcom today was because I said something that you didn't like, on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I cannot think of a more petty and juvenile thing you could do -- especially when you were given actual evidence that a PR firm had completely doctored
David B. Rivkin, but you sat back and mocked that notification. That article, you didn't touch. No, you came to the Reliance Globalcom article to do your trolling, because you thought that would upset me. Well, guess what, Coretheapple? You're going to lose this battle, either way. You know why? Because if the article stays, then I "win", because you wanted it deleted. If the article gets deleted, guess what? I have several very good friends who work for one of the United States' biggest competitors of Reliance Globalcom. If the article gets deleted, I'll forward them this discussion, letting them know that I was 208.116.141.100 today, and then they are going to be so pleased, we're going to laugh all night as they buy me a steak dinner and a bottle of the best Shiraz in the house. Sorry if that blows your mind, Coretheapple, but it's 100% true. It would appear that you just wasted a bunch of time today, trolling toiling away hopelessly on your precious, inviolable Wikipedia. -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Wow, you are really perhaps one of the densest minds I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. If you haven't "gotten" it by now, we'll try one more time -- I have no affiliation with Reliance Globalcom, other than I happen to be logging into one of their WiFi hotspots today. That will be all I have to say on this matter. Good luck with the AfD! (Remember, either outcome, I win!) -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Aw shucks, I am stupid! Yes that is surely the most credible explanation for your passion on this subject. You just happened to be using one of their computers on behalf of MyWikiBiz, a paid-editing mill. By the way, just so you know, you've got to keep your IPs straight. You made no comments on Jimbo's talk page about Rivkin, you just vandalized that discussion on a couple of occasions. No, the comments about Rivkin were made when you logged on under IP 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39.
Coretheapple (
talk)
18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not 208.116, but I thought I'd point out in his defense that you seem to be
wrong again, Coretheapple. User:208.116 did in fact contribute to the Rivkin discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. If you're this atrocious with reviewing simple diffs as evidence, you maybe shouldn't be guiding Wikipedia's content decisions, either. -
2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (
talk)
20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No Mr. 2001/208 etc., that diff shows only that you vandalized another editor's post, just as I said. Please stop claiming that you're two separate people, when you're clearly the same person.
Coretheapple (
talk)
21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
How is being advised by
MyWikiBiz some sort of "lock" or guarantee that 208.116 is affiliated with Reliance Globalcom? If anything, it is appearing more and more that 208.116's passion is either winding you up, Coretheapple, or seeing that the Reliance Globalcom page gets deleted (a "
joe job"), or quite probably both. Whatever the case, you've come off as pretty much stark-raving mad; certainly no asset to the Wikipedia project. -
2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (
talk)
20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm staying neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but can we stop talking about the sockpuppets already? They were created by banned
User:Mr Wiki Pro, who is not related to either Coretheapple or 208.116.141.100. He has been disrupting a different random AFD every day for the past few days with a new set of sockpuppets.
NawlinWiki (
talk)
16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge to Reliance Communications. Not finding in-depth secondary source coverage. Google and HighBeam searches get tons of trade press articles that appear to be regurgitated press releases.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I found this while catching up on all the latest kerfuffle about Greg (whom I know from Wikipediocracy, where I'm a staff member) and MyWikiBiz. Maybe I am missing something here, but I am not finding a lack of sources:
Reuters,
Economic Times of the Times of India,
The Hindu,
Indian Express, etc. These are hundreds of articles, including in India's biggest national dailies, and articles like
this or
this or
this don't look like press releases to me. To be sure, I don't see many good sources cited in the article, but article quality is different from notability. And why is this in UK-related deletion discussions, if it's an Indian company?
AndreasJN46616:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Since the company is the principal author of this article, it can't be ignorant of the sources you cite. These are regurgitated press releases, no depth of coverage.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I guess that's because they're a subsidiary of a public company. Interesting that that's part of the notability criteria, as Hoover's lists pretty much everybody.
Coretheapple (
talk)
10:47, 20 May 2014 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:CORP. Sourced mainly to SEC filings, and without sufficient independent secondary sourcing so as to establish notability, Article has been heavily edited over the years by at least seven SPAs and an account associated with the company itself, and most recently has employed a paid editing service, but all of these efforts have failed, as the sourcing just isn't there.
Coretheapple (
talk)
14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Ordinarily merger would be a solution, and at first I was inclined to agree, but there seems to be very little worth preserving here.
Coretheapple (
talk)
15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Linking to Bing search results showing non-notable websites and press releases is unhelpful. The company, to be notable, requires multiple secondary sources. As the editing history of this AfD will indicate, somebody associated with the company was so insecure about the fate of the article that it employed sockpuppets to disrupt this discussion, and now unleashed an SPA IP editor engaging in
personal attacks and
vandalism. You're employed or paid by the company, editing from one of the company's computers
"On advice from MyWikiBiz, this article has been sufficiently trimmed of the excessive marketing language. Disclosure: I am working from a Reliance Globalcom network". This was a red flag for proper scrutiny and not "wikistalking." And yes, the fact that the company, represented by you, can't bring the article up to Wikipedia standards is a good indicator that it just can't be done by volunteeers. I see from the edit history that the article was heavily edited by a succession of SPAs over the years
[1][2][3][4][5][6], as well as
User:Reliance.globalcom, so you're not the first, and yet the article still fails to satisfy
WP:CORP.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Please listen for minute, Coretheapple -- you might learn something. The link I gave to Bing News archives contains the following sources on the first page:
You spotted a couple of press releases, and you damned the entire library of sources. This shows that you are not fit for evaluating sources, due to your harassment and wiki-stalking of my edits today on Wikipedia. What is wrong with you? (Also, see below that your obsession with "sockpuppets" is also out of place here.) -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No, they're not notable and even if they were, what you cite fail
WP:AUD. Yes, I realize they're fine for you, because you work for the company. AfD debates are internal processes for Wikipedia editors, and are not a place for article subjects, their employees and agents to weigh in, even if they weren't being abusive as you are. I realize this article matters a lot to the company, because the company created an account to edit the article, and then, both before and after that account was blocked, dispatched a half-dozen people to create accounts to work on this article. Obviously Wikipedia is a high p.r. priority for the company. I get that. It's not uncommon, and I really sympathize with all the effort, but the sources just aren't there. They've obviously invested a fair sum of money in getting this article up and running, so the passion is evident.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Would you describe the
Wall Street Journal as passing
WP:AUD? If so, then there is
this. How about
Financial Times? If so, then there is
this. Do you see how silly you're beginning to look, Coretheapple? The company has laid telecommunications cables across entire oceans! Do you realize what a monumental human undertaking that is? You sit there with your arms crossed, saying, "Nope, that's not notable, because I've never heard of this company, and I'm in a butthurt rage about the editor this morning being smarter than me, so I CAN HAZ TO RETALEEATEZ!" Grow up, Coretheapple. -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
First, you've been around Wikipedia a very long time, certainly long enough to be familiar with
WP:NPA, and also to know that resorting to juvenile personal attacks is a sign of desperation. Those articles are so insignificant that they aren't even used as sources for this article. What's required is depth of coverage, not tied-together press releases and copying from SEC filings self-published by the company. I know you love this company dearly, and the company loves itself so dearly that it has deployed considerable resources to putting this article in Wikipedia and keeping it there. But it still has to meet notability standards. Let's see what independent editors, those with no stake in the company, have to say. That's why we're having this discussion. Remember
WP:DONTPANIC?
Coretheapple (
talk)
17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Let's get one thing straight. This whole nomination is a personal attack, Coretheapple. You know that. The only reason you came to the article about Reliance Globalcom today was because I said something that you didn't like, on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I cannot think of a more petty and juvenile thing you could do -- especially when you were given actual evidence that a PR firm had completely doctored
David B. Rivkin, but you sat back and mocked that notification. That article, you didn't touch. No, you came to the Reliance Globalcom article to do your trolling, because you thought that would upset me. Well, guess what, Coretheapple? You're going to lose this battle, either way. You know why? Because if the article stays, then I "win", because you wanted it deleted. If the article gets deleted, guess what? I have several very good friends who work for one of the United States' biggest competitors of Reliance Globalcom. If the article gets deleted, I'll forward them this discussion, letting them know that I was 208.116.141.100 today, and then they are going to be so pleased, we're going to laugh all night as they buy me a steak dinner and a bottle of the best Shiraz in the house. Sorry if that blows your mind, Coretheapple, but it's 100% true. It would appear that you just wasted a bunch of time today, trolling toiling away hopelessly on your precious, inviolable Wikipedia. -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Wow, you are really perhaps one of the densest minds I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. If you haven't "gotten" it by now, we'll try one more time -- I have no affiliation with Reliance Globalcom, other than I happen to be logging into one of their WiFi hotspots today. That will be all I have to say on this matter. Good luck with the AfD! (Remember, either outcome, I win!) -
208.116.141.100 (
talk)
18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Aw shucks, I am stupid! Yes that is surely the most credible explanation for your passion on this subject. You just happened to be using one of their computers on behalf of MyWikiBiz, a paid-editing mill. By the way, just so you know, you've got to keep your IPs straight. You made no comments on Jimbo's talk page about Rivkin, you just vandalized that discussion on a couple of occasions. No, the comments about Rivkin were made when you logged on under IP 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39.
Coretheapple (
talk)
18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not 208.116, but I thought I'd point out in his defense that you seem to be
wrong again, Coretheapple. User:208.116 did in fact contribute to the Rivkin discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. If you're this atrocious with reviewing simple diffs as evidence, you maybe shouldn't be guiding Wikipedia's content decisions, either. -
2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (
talk)
20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No Mr. 2001/208 etc., that diff shows only that you vandalized another editor's post, just as I said. Please stop claiming that you're two separate people, when you're clearly the same person.
Coretheapple (
talk)
21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
How is being advised by
MyWikiBiz some sort of "lock" or guarantee that 208.116 is affiliated with Reliance Globalcom? If anything, it is appearing more and more that 208.116's passion is either winding you up, Coretheapple, or seeing that the Reliance Globalcom page gets deleted (a "
joe job"), or quite probably both. Whatever the case, you've come off as pretty much stark-raving mad; certainly no asset to the Wikipedia project. -
2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (
talk)
20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm staying neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but can we stop talking about the sockpuppets already? They were created by banned
User:Mr Wiki Pro, who is not related to either Coretheapple or 208.116.141.100. He has been disrupting a different random AFD every day for the past few days with a new set of sockpuppets.
NawlinWiki (
talk)
16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge to Reliance Communications. Not finding in-depth secondary source coverage. Google and HighBeam searches get tons of trade press articles that appear to be regurgitated press releases.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I found this while catching up on all the latest kerfuffle about Greg (whom I know from Wikipediocracy, where I'm a staff member) and MyWikiBiz. Maybe I am missing something here, but I am not finding a lack of sources:
Reuters,
Economic Times of the Times of India,
The Hindu,
Indian Express, etc. These are hundreds of articles, including in India's biggest national dailies, and articles like
this or
this or
this don't look like press releases to me. To be sure, I don't see many good sources cited in the article, but article quality is different from notability. And why is this in UK-related deletion discussions, if it's an Indian company?
AndreasJN46616:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Since the company is the principal author of this article, it can't be ignorant of the sources you cite. These are regurgitated press releases, no depth of coverage.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I guess that's because they're a subsidiary of a public company. Interesting that that's part of the notability criteria, as Hoover's lists pretty much everybody.
Coretheapple (
talk)
10:47, 20 May 2014 (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.