Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperlink InfoSystem

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. There is a consensus that the sources provided are not sufficiently independent to be usable to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink InfoSystem

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. Sources are all press releases, name drops and comments from those associated with the company, self published websites.

1. REF #1 Melissa Crooks, content writer who writes for the company [1]

2. REF #2, paid article with disclaimer The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.

3. REF #4 paid promo (partnered content)

4. REF #5 paid article, unreliable source

5. REF #6 study carried out by hyperlink

6. REF #7 study carried out by hyperlink

7. REF #8 partnered content

8. REF #9 partnered content

9. REF #10 interview with founder

10.REF #13 press release [2] other sources include company's directories, PR paid articles, and unreliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found many references from reliable resources passes GNG and WP:RS. DMySon 16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Can you point to references that you believe have in-depth, independent coverage?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned this paid article, unreliable source while Hindustan Times is a reliable resource and not paid as it mentioned many companies. And this is independent reliable reference. You mentioned this, study carried out by hyperlink. Again this is not the study by Hyperlink but it is a study by Marc Fischer, CEO and Co-founder, Dogtown Media. And many more in the list which are reliable resources. DMySon 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMySon this is literally a paid piece and says as much directly on the page, it's brand sponsored. This is a single passing mention and this is an op ed. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMySon Yes, I am aware Hindustan Times is a well-know newspaper in India. However, if you look closely, at the bottom, It is written This content is distributed by Digpu News Network and I meant Digpu is not a reliable source as on their website and LinkedIn it says Indian PR news distribution network. Hope you understood why I called it non RS.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator claim for deletion is not accurate for all giving references. Most of the coverage are independent and reliable. Passes WP:GNG. Gdrged (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gdrged: Already explained above as to why sources are not reliable and independent. They are all press releases, listings in company directories, interviews, paid articles which are considered primary, non independent and do not count towards notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and my review of sources above. Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reliance on sponsored content, no truly independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are primary, paid, or trivial, and while there is a lot out there about them I couldn't find anything that wasn't at least one of those three things. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability of a company/organization as discussed above. The main failure is a complete lack of any "Independent Content" which is required in order to count towards establishing notability and must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references I can locate meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete fails the GNG and NORG, sources are not independent and reliable. Java Hurricane 05:20, 28 September 2020 (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.