Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meddy

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. Sandstein 08:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT WP:NWEB - mostly low-quality sources, passing mentions - being one of 500 startups is probably not enough notability for WP:NWEB. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's difficult to filter out this Meddy (booking service) from Meddy (rapper) or Meddy (Saudi coffee shop) (etc.), but that is itself a reflection on the lack of coverage in reliable sources: in news outlets its no more than passing mentions (except a puff-piece in the Gulf Times, but which is primiarilly an interview with the founders and thus a WP:PRIMARY, self-published source). Per nom, thus fails both NPRODUCT (no parent company article as a suitable redirect) and NWEB (no extensive coverage in RS, no major awards or recognition). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough of the references in the article are reasonably in-depth, primarily about the company, and from reliable sources. The good references include Inc. Arabia[1], Doha News[2], Qatar Tribine[3] Extensive information about Meddy appears in a Wamda article about four health apps[4], so that one is good as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Eastmain - you appear to be interpreting WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH incorrectly. You appear to leave out the fact that references must also be intellectually independent (not rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources and company announcements mainly). One really good indicator is a reference to explicitly contain opinion/analysis of the journalist (always ticks the box for me). A really good tip for recognizing promo pieces is to look for puffery and corpo-speak along with photos and selected "quotations" to make points. The Arabia reference is a classic churnalistic promo piece (posed photo, interview with founders, describe aha moment, promote solution, talk about funding, etc). Nothing in this article is the opinion of the journalist. Completely and utterly fails WP:ORGIND. The Doha News reference is a puff piece published by a source which, in my view, fails WP:RS. But leaving that aside, it appears to rely extensively on selected quotations from a company source, contains direct links covering promotional stories to the company website and contains phrases such as "The portal, Meddy, is the brainchild of recent Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar (CMUQ) graduate, 21-year-old Haris Aghadi." and "Explaining the inspiration behind the project", Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree that the Qatar Tribune reference contains "extensive information about Meddy" but that is because it is based on a Press Release from the company. Another example appears here (notice the same text and quote). Clearly not intellectually independent. Clearly fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the review in Wanda (which is a questionable source that may not meet WP:RS contains no intellectually independent opinion or analysis, relies extensively on quotations from the founders, and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Wow, that's an annoying search term. Still, I think on balance it passes. Basie (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding the sources posted by Eastmain, The Wamda article doesn't have any in-depth information, it's just one of four "Startups to watch". I don't even know if Wamda would be considered WP:RS. Inc Magazine is borderline, I'm on the fence about whether it should be used at all - I couldn't find any meaningful information about the publication, its circulation or its reputation for fact checking - so I'm leaning towards no.

The remaining articles are routine announcements of a product release. The 2016 article from Qatar Tribune is a routine announcement about the launch of the Arabic language version of the website, and the 2014 article from Doha times is an announcement about the 2014 launch of the website, published just a few days after the product was launched. There isn't enough to pass WP:NPRODUCT or WP:NWEB. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. (magazine) is the American edition of the magazine. Peter James (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - from https://meddy.recruitee.com/ : "We are one of the fastest growing startups in Qatar. We have won several regional and local awards."
  Someone who speaks Arabic, should look into such award claims. -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Eastmain has found reliable sources that give it significant coverage to prove this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel the references within the article provide sufficient suitable sourcing to pass WP:NCORP. If someone has the capability (or a better translator than google!) to look in the local languages that might grant us a bit more detail Nosebagbear
• Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (in any language). Eastmain's references also fail (see above). There are no intellectually independent references and the invariably fails WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not a type of Yellow Pages platform. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough sources exist to lend credence to this organization, most importantly Doha News, which, before its censorship, was arguably the most reputable Qatari outlet after Al Jazeera (among locals at least). I also found a good Arabic source discussing Meedy, its origins, services and competition on Arabnet.me. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2018 (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.