Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crederity
- 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Crederity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} |
None of the refs provide any evidence of notability, as far as I can find, and the author of the article has declined to help to pointing out if any. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
External references have been added and discrepancies have been deleted to comply with general notability guidelines, do review the reordered references and citations and additional references. Haribhagirath (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I asked you in two places to point out which, if any, sources support the notability criteria in WP:ORG. Did you? Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to be a simple introduction about a company.The references provided are from websites which are completely independent.As far as I can see its a company over-view, and there is no attempt of advertisement over here.Its a company registered in India, hence the chances of posting online credentials is limited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.assasin (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - More than enough coverage, by a variety of different sources, to meet the WP:GNG. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've been asking the author for examples of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Maybe you can point some out. I haven't seen it; maybe it's not among what's cited? See Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criteria; it looks to me like all the cited sources are "trivial" coverage by these criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO, the two most solid third-party reliably sourced references are http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/36126/Innovate+and+enrich.html?complete=1 and http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/14205834/Firms-cash-in-on-the-startup.html . These aren't press releases -- both of these articles involved a journalist interviewing Rakesh Antala and writing a profile of the business. Additionally, http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/08/24/idINIndia-41938220090824 has only a little bit of content specifically about Crederity, but it's a very solid source, and the "Red Herring" listing and its appearance on the Wharton School list indicate that the business has received independent attention from diverse directions. --Orlady (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes the WP:ORG guidelines are adhered, I believe references are independent and secondary Haribhagirath (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that User:Haribhagirath is the author, and a WP:SPA for this business (and his buddy User:Raja.assasin above seems to be puppet made for the purpose of supporting him here). He still hasn't answered which sources, if any, support the notability criteria. I looked at the first 5 or so, and they don't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do verify 11 references instead of 5. (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. A perfect example of why counting "references" is not good enough; nothing establishes that this back-office personnel business running background checks has had a significant impact on history, culture, or technology; nor would we expect it to, given that it's a 2007 startup. And the references are routine announcements of funds raised, announcements of the startup, top 100 lists, and stories about background checks generally. No showing of long term historical notability here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep- Mr. Dicklyon...I am no puppet(wiki has a facility to track Ip addresses...it can gladly do the same with me)...I strongly feel that the article has enough online references to be a part of wikipedia....Facebook was 2004 startup...it did make a significant impact.The reference meet the criteria that wikipedia has set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.assasin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Second significant impact comments of Smerdis of Tlön (but subtract the 2007 comment). Crederity doesn't have to be a Facebook, but it needs to do something noteworthy to get its own article. Glrx (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2011 (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.