Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplilearn (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. Following detailed discussion, the consensus is that there is not enough independent sourcing to meet WP:NCORP due to many sources originating from company PR. RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simplilearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Non notable Awards. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH from third-party sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A clear keep as per the previous AFD and my personal findings. Plenty of in-depth coverage from multiple sources which is more than enough to meet CORPDEPTH. If an article is written is promotional tone, it should be copyedited rather than bringing to AFD. Pinging Hatchens, who was the reviewer of this article. Poppified ^talk 07:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poppified, Thank you for the ping. Yes, I have reviewed this entity 5 months ago. And, at that time, I had consulted with Prolix before taking a decision. The conversation is well documented on the entity's talk page. We let it pass because of its independent sources and tagged it as a WP:STUB, so that other editors can add something to it. To contest this AfD, one has to do proper "page source analysis". I'm adding it below (in this discussion) along with my vote. But, in the end - we should always go ahead with the general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on the below mentione "Page Source Analysis";

Page Sources Analysis by Hatchens

The entity clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPDEPTH (coverage in an academic book), and WP:THREE(as per WP:RSP). If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add to this discussion. Whatever would be the outcome, nominator and the closing admin has my support. -Hatchens (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hatchens, the references you provided are either press releases, announcements, self published or just passing mentions no WP:INDEPTH coverage. I have added one more column of my comments into you ref table. GermanKity (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear GermanKity, thank you for adding your comments. But, your analysis is wrong w.r.t most of the sources (except the Times of India one, fourth from the bottom). Kindly refer to WP:RSP, tally all the sources, refer to the individual discussions (of mentioned sources) and duly match it with reference to this entity... once again. - Hatchens (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Hatchens. I might have differences here on SIGCOV of a couple; but even if I ignore those what I think is not SIGCOV, there is sufficient to qualify. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at the anlaysis above, it seems that almsot all the proposed references are PR or notices. Tjhe only potetially acceptable source is the Kites in a Hurricane book. and that's not. enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mainly per WP:CORPDEPTH. These sources are relatively flimsy, and even those which might appear superficially reliable smell like churnalism. Sources do not explain why this is notable, they merely list routine business "partnerships" and similar buzzwords. The mention of a Stevie Award is an especially bad sign. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is an interesting discussion and raises right questions - that if there are regular announcements by companies about ongoing activities, partnership et al - do they count towards notability or not. I am also trying to establish WP:THREE here. There is consensus that the book counts towards notability; so that's one. Now let's see if we can find two more. What do we think about Forbes article [1]? It came in print and is written by staff writer. What about [2]? Written by a staff writer. Business standard is surely reliable. It has a lot of quotes from the company but it also discusses the company and activities outside what they are saying about themselves. Another one written by a staff writer [3] at Live Mint which looks alright. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of different takes and confusion above but in my opinion, much of the confusion above stems from 2 things. The first, some editors are looking at the wrong guidelines and putting far too much emphasis on WP:RS. RS is probably the lowest standard to reach. The correct guideline for an organization is WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Second, nobody has mentioned WP:ORGIND and the fact that a reference must pass both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND - it isn't an either/or situation. Just about all of the references in that table above fails ORGIND. For example, this from entrepreneur.com recites verbatim an interview with the CEO and has no "Independent Content" - a clear failure of ORGIND. It doesn't matter in the slightest if a journalist puts their name on the article or not - that doesn't make the content "Independent Content". According to the ORGIND definition for Independent Content, the article must contain "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Not a single one of those references meets the NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, Thank you for the well explanation. GermanKity (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks HighKing! I think what you have said is very important and should always be remembered. What do you think about [4]? There is no disagreement that this company has created probably hundreds of sources with PR or other means. I am just trying to see that in midst of all those useless sources, are there any that would indicate notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Everything here is based on promotionalism or is a mere notice.. A promotional interview published in an otherwise reliable source is a promotional interview, and doeasn't count for notability and is not actually reliable for anything at all, it -- it just represents what the company wants to say. My analysis here is independent of Highking's, or any of the others', which I will look at only after I finish this. . I'm looking for myself, and anyone who !voted keep should actualy read the sources also.
• Entrepreneur India is just such an interview. The job of a PR person is to get such interviews, The article is not written by a deputy editor. It's published under their name, but almost every substantial word in it is written by the company president,, or, morel likely, their PR person. There is complete consensus in NCORP. that such such interviews are not independent: We don't even know that there ever was an actual interview.
• Economic Times 1 is a classicc notice. Its the notice of an announcement of a branch offoce, and it doesn't matter who wrote it or where it was published, but. it looks like they just reprinted a press release.
• ET 2 I can't see, but its apparently a notice of financial reports..
• ET 3 is an afrticle about the industry. The SL section is a reprint of their standard press release.
• Forbes India is a general article about the idia, composed of promotional interview with 3 companies. That's d a little more subtle than Entrpreneur India, but thats still what it is. Not indpendent.
• Hindu Business Line is a compilation of press releases, and SL gets only a small amount of coverage. Even if this compilation is regarded as is editorial, not pR, it's not substation
• Financial Express. Only 1 paragraph in a geneeal story is about SL, and that's a quote from the owner.:
• HBL 2 Everything based on what the company chose to tell them
• Times of India This one is a quite good story by a reporter, but it covers 9 firms in one paragraph each. SL got 2 inconspicuous sentences in a logn story. Not substantial.
• Sage book (Sage is a second-rate business publisher .) Kites in a Hurricane: Startups from Cradle to Fame There's a small section, 3 pages in a 273 p. book, titlred "Simplelearn: The Founders Experience" that about describes it.. Not independent.
• Indian Express It's not about SL, its an announcement of a program from IIT that uses their technology. Unsubstantial announcement
• The Hindu Fairly good story about the effect of IT. They use a quote from SL. along with quotes from numerous other firms. Not substantial, not independent.

The notability policy that applies here is NCORP, which makes it clear what sources are RS for companies and what sources are not. It isn't the name of the publication. It's who actually wrote the material, and what it says. There is no completely reliable source, in India, the US, or anywhere else. The reliability depends on the subject, and varies from story to story. Most business publications are a mix of real news, analysis, and promotionalism . A good publication has relatively little that's just promotionalism , but it's never or almost never the case that it has none at all. If they did, the PR profession would be out of business. What this analaysis says in general about the publications, is that the Times of India and The Hindu (but not necessarily their business section) sometime publish real journalism--That's what we thought about them before--but the items in question here , though independent, are not substantial coverage.

But what's at stake is not WP:N--variations in what we cover are relatively insignificant. It's one of our fundamental policies, WP:V. The very purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide nPOV verifiable information. What a company says about itself is not reliable as a source for anything that's going to be NPOV. It can only be used to give the opinion of the owners about their firm, and may or may not have any relation to reality. It does not matter where it's printed. Even if it's printed in a good RS , it still just shows what the owners want to say about themselves. If we compromise on this, we lose our purpose and are no better than google. Google prints what the companies say also. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadicghumakkad, this is the best explanation one can ask for. As a reviewer of this article, I'm pretty much convinced with DGG and others. Besides that, the reliability of Livemint is yet to be ascertained. Also, I'm convinced with HighKing assessment -> we're "looking at the wrong guidelines and putting far too much emphasis on WP:RS." We've to look beyond it. -Hatchens (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Hatchens ! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (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.