Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Careem

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Clear consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careem (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)

Clear advertising regardless of the supposed "Criticism" section because it's all still what they themselves would advertise and the history shows come-and-go accounts all suggesting it was clear advertising, nothing genuinely better has been found and there's nothing suggesting this isn't anything else but a business listing, hence violating our policies alone. Also, it's clear advertising when an article cares to go in such specifics as "profiling the company executives and their plans". Also, it's troubling when the only controversy that can be offered is mere "licensing concerns and acting against licensing regulations" (nearly any company will have such concerns, especially when involved in the specific field for it) and such, since that's an easy attempt to mirror a "controversy" section yet still counter it with the other existing PR, and elusive PR is one of the main things our policies never accept, because it's a blatant misuse. This is the article now and that's exactly what's stayed in the same since these accounts here started involving themselves, including with logged-out IPs, a presumption of making it "heavily involved by several". For example, before anyone asks, I'll examine the current sources:

  • 1-14 are all clear business announcements and this is unsurprising considering the company is the sole author here
  • (Now, from the newly added sources): 1 is a clear business announcement about new plans, including name-drops
  • 2 is an unconvincing "consumers are concerned"
  • 3 is another one of the "company legal concerns"
  • 4 is involving another company, and comparing it, complete with clear company quotes
  • 5 is the same
  • 6 is another company announcement with clear quotes, including its beginning headline statements
  • 7 is again about licensing legalities
  • 8 is a clear announcement, complete with republishings of the company's plans for its own business

If this is the best we offer for improvements, there's not only still nothing for our basic standards as they themselves cite business announcements, interviews, quotes, company finances and plans as all unacceptable, and worse, when we involve WP:What Wikipedia is not. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment and analysis - It's important to note that half of the sources listed above are the same ones analyzed above so, with the concerns listed in they being only published and republished business announcements, they're not valid for our policies. The few different ones here are still clear similar mirrors, such as the particular ones that still only focus with the same events, such as licensing or employee concerns or legalities, none of which bestow a company notability, or else any company's mere legal cases would inherit them an article. One, in particular, the TheGuardian, is simply a simple news story part of their business column, and that's natural given any newspaper will publish any other relevant stories, that's not an automatic notability factor at all. Given, this finishes what ever else sourcing was offered, it still emphasizes the fact there exists no convincing substance. In fact, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states sources must be independent, significant, substantial and not simply based from primary sources, which these still are, so not only are they not valid for a simple guideline, they're certainly no match for our policy WP:NOT, which explicitly allows deletion of any company webhosting. Not only was WP:NOT the first policy explicitly targeted for such company webhosting, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states that such articles can in fact be negotiated for deletion instead, if it best serves Wikipedia, which in this case, the clear company-motivated advertising seals it. Next, WP:NOT itself states articles shall not be copyedited if such is outweighed by excessive advertising, which in this case, is, because of the unconfessed COI, but then also because the sources are only announcements and mere news stories, none of it amounted to substance, hence such copyediting would only amount to shoehorning advertising. For example, "The company enjoys pleasing its customers" cannot be changed into anything else because the message is still clear advertising as is the case here, given the advertising far outweighed anything "controversial" their employees added here. The fact the article was still unconvincing after a few improvements is enough for deletion alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – More sources are available in addition to the samples listed above. See below for more. Yet more are available in addition to those listed below. Clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources provided herein are news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Every source is not automatically PR or advertising as some sort of peculiar default. North America1000 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Which policy of ours automatically sets GNG as a confirmed guarantee of notability? Our policies currently state GNG is never such a compromise against our pillar policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - Examining the sources above are still clear business announcements, complete with the DailyNews which is focusing with their pricing for customers automatically unacceptable in our policies given the sheer non-independence, and our policies set these examples clearly as they always have. The other source above that link is a clear business announcements focusing with their company activities, so the fact this is still all existing shows there's nothing but the "motivating their own attention" plans. Next, the Entrepreneur is a clear "Story of a new business" and it's complete with company life stories and quotes, something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is clear about not accepting as sourcing.
  • For example take this from the CNN link suggested above as "significant": It has about 150,000 drivers (or captains as Careem likes to call them) and expects the latest investment will allow it to create one million jobs by 2018....Sheikha says the company is not profitable yet but hopes to be in the next two years.... (This itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH because such trivial business information has no place in this encyclopedia, as it is, only about 20% of the news article ever actually mentions the company, and what I quoted here is nearly over half of it)
  • The DailyNewsEgypt especially still violates WP:CORPDEPTH because it focuses with pricing, something else WP:NOT explicitly states that violates our policies. With this, all of the sources explicitly focus with routine announcements and notices, something both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT confirm as unacceptable
  • Similar violates are then in the VoiceofAmerica which states Uber and Careem require their drivers to use cars that are less than 3 years old. Uber works with financing companies in Saudi Arabia to help its drivers buy cars....The use of the app for booking a car also allows a passenger to select a particular driver, and some believe that the use of smartphone technology brings a better class of driver....difference in price between a journey with Uber or Careem....employ more than the 65,000 nationals....Careem, however, is developing a subsidized rides program for low-income working Saudi women....both Careem and Uber say most drivers work part time, keeping government jobs.... None of this satisfies our policies because it's clear announcements and mentions
  • Now take the DailyNews Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration....Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration to Careem....Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration.... The article itself not only has this as supposed 'information', it then says it came from a local tech blog (thus not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either)
  • Now take DAWN, which says Careem cites the total cost of the trip, which you can either book immediately (base rate Rs150) or schedule for a later time (base rate Rs250) in the day....The app instantly sends a profile and photograph of the driver — called the 'Captain' — who is on his way to pick you up....Details include the model, colour and license plate of the car so you can keep an eye out for him. Customers are also given an option to track the ride, presumably in an effort to make users feel secure.... charging Rs220 for a one-way ride between 11am and 4pm during the weekdays and Rs320 after 4pm. However, the promotion applies to a 12km ride and those who want to travel further pay Rs25/km....got an email detailing the distance and bill, explaining what the original bill would have been without this deal (hold for company photo)....the service was offering a promo code and flat rate of Rs200 for a ride to the festival. The car, a latest Toyota Corolla model....Careem was founded in 2012 in Dubai, with the simple mission to provide convenient, reliable and comfortable transport services to customers. It has since grown to cover 26 cities - currently operational....It expects to - claims its dedicated efforts to.... (As it is, the article's bottom states the company can be asked to review anything, thus overall still violating WP:CORPDEPTH, because the publication or author could've been enticed for such specifics, since no one else knows the company finances better than the company itself)

Our encyclopedia is specifically targeted for genuine subjects with genuine news, not something the company influenced and paid for itself since only their own websites is suitable for that. Another common sign showing this is the blatant fact all of the news above are still, as earlier, in clear times the company's financials quarters we're starting, see "January 2016, "March 2016" and then "January 2016" and we've established that as a clear attempt to still start their own attention given it's not naturally occurring, and this itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply because the Entrepreneur Middle East News Chief listed his name is not automatically making it acceptable as WP:CORPDEPTH itself still makes it clear there's never such compromising, and examining this exact source carefully shows the label "Source: Careem" (especially conveniently located next to each large paragraph), sealing the case it's still not independent. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORG is not a policy and has never been a fundamental policy pillar. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are your solutions for improving then? Because the history shows improvements were made but advertising still stayed, that alone suggests there's no hopes for our policies. Also, GNG is not a pillar policy and it states it in the first words "GNG is a suggestive guideline, not policy". SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is indeed a guideline, not policy. Guidelines are by their very nature intended to interpreted flexibly. See the headnote for WP:N "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The actual text of that page is if read in detail incoherent and contradictory "notable or worthy of notice" does not actually require any subtantial sources, just that the subject would be worth someone writing a source somewhere--but over the years we have agreed not to interpret it in that extremely loose manner. . The language is obsolete for the usual reason at WP:no matter how bad it is, we would never agree just how to change it. And also the GNG says "presumed to be notable:" any presumption can be defeated by showing that any other consideration makes it not notable.
What's more, the next sentence on the guideline says "and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." NOT, unlike the GNG, is policy, and NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT PROMOTION are the 3 key policies in most of the debates here. (as for this particular article, I haven't yet decided. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have what ... 5 million articles here ? .... so we're not gonna be able to spot promotional content in them all, GNG may well be a guideline however its something that is heavily followed here –Davey2010Talk 08:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that when quoting content about guideline pages using quotation marks, such as stating "...and it states it in the first words "GNG is a suggestive guideline, not policy"" as above, this is misleading, because this phrase is not on the page at all. Content within quotation marks when citing a page should be verbatim. North America1000 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I agree with the nom that the original references did not meet WP:RS as they were not "independent" (most were advertorials and relied almost exclusively on "interviews") but a search has shown many references that are independent (many on the Uber/Careem "taking-taxi-jobs" controversy, others on bringing women into the workforce). -- HighKing++ 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such as which ones and what number of them? It would help to show which ones. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Careem&oldid=1143884870"