Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination)

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was reviewed at Deletion Review, and they asked I expand on the close. Here are the two statements I gave:
  • Since people are asking for more, ok: We start with an article that is three short paragraphs, much shorter than the amount of prose that has already taken place here or at the AFD. While Cunard went to great lengths to explain how it received coverage, it simply didn't overcome the arguments about the company being a small, new and not yet notable company. The nomination mentioned the previous AFD (which I did look at) and the early and late !voters had the opportunity to already preview the sources that Cunard presented, as they were the exact same sources given in the previous AFD. The other keep votes were basically saying "enough sources exist" but didn't explain how those sources were adequate, how they actually went into depth; they didn't overcome the claims of the nominator. SwisterTwister gave a detailed analysis of the sources, which raised a number of issues. Interesting, but the other issues were not decisive, although he did echo the concerns of the nominator when it comes to depth of sources, and the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company. Light2021's contribution was small, but understandable as they had previously gone into great detail on the other AFD, which I took at face value. Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The strongest !vote was the nom, which also talks about depth, plus the insufficiency of the sources. ST's argument was also very interesting, even if a bit meandering. Cunard's input was well researched and I don't question the accuracy but reading it, while staying objective, doesn't scream "independent, thoughtful analysis" by the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered.
  • In response to a question: Dennis, I'm struggling a bit because the community's attitude to notability, and the text of WP:N, seems to have drifted in a deletionist direction over the past few years. When you closed that, were your thoughts more about WP:SPIP? Or more about WP:CORPDEPTH? Or have I just misunderstood?—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Both come into play in at least two of the votes. SPIP is always a concern as an editor, but wasn't really a major factor in my decision making, as the comments were mainly focused on CORPDEPTH and sources in general. The idea that this was spam didn't enter my mind, to be honest. The close was actually made easier by Cunard because I trusted him to provide the most solid evidence of notability, conveniently put on the same page. Unfortunately, each of those entries was rather mundane stuff you would see in press releases, which supported the claims of the nom et. al. Things like "Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders" or "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform" which is specifically what CORPDEPTH calls trivial coverage. Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. The quotes simply talked about the company in the exact terms that CORPDEPTH clearly excludes. I would have been easier (and obviously less controversial) to close as "NO CONSENSUS" but that is kicking the can down the road and doesn't reflect what I saw as a policy based consensus. I would agree that WP:N has probably tightened up when it comes to businesses. I would not call that a drift towards deletionism, I think the community has simply grown weary of the spam and has drawn a more definitive "line in the sand" on notability when it comes to start up businesses, and this is reflected in both consensus and the written policies around WP:GNG. I have to use the policy as it is written today, not 11 years ago when I started. But the tightening isn't the issue here, nor any concern about spam, nor did I apply a higher standard, nor did I need to. The lack of sufficient high quality sources was the issue, and specifically, CORPDEPTH was the specific claim that was not overcome in spite of a great deal of effort. (and pardon my wordiness, I've been rather swamped over the last 24 hour, so my prose isn't as concise as I like when I'm a bit rushed) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)