Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoGoVan

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoGoVan

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

GoGoVan, a van hire company, has repeatedly been spamming itself to Wikipedia over the past few months.

GoGoVan (deleted 3 times)
GoGo Tech (deleted through AfD)
Gogovan (deleted 2 times)
GOGOVAN (deleted 2 times)

Past iterations of the article bore an almost comically promotional tone and were easily deleted through the CSD WP:G11 criterion.

Now I suspect that GoGoVan has hired one of the increasing numbers of PR firms that do these sorts of cookie cutter Wikipedia articles on startup companies, with the usual undue fixation on how the startup was funded, which is necessary given the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources on other aspects of the company.

Article creator is a single-purpose account with undeclared conflict of interest, in violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Past GoGoVan promotional accounts have been warned of this repeatedly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion or a vehicle for advertising.

Given the multitude of different accounts that have been spamming this company to Wikipedia over the past year, I strongly anticipate "keep" votes from WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts. There are digital marketing companies here in Hong Kong (and elsewhere) that keep these sorts of accounts on hand for use promoting different clients.

I recommend we blow it up as an undisclosed sock farm and start over. GoGoVan, if your company is notable someone will eventually make a page independently. You don't need to do it yourself. Citobun (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Article does appear to be a little promotional to me. If I saw it without knowing the history, I would assume it was an okay page. Quite a lot of unneeded wiki-links, (14 links to Hong Kong alone). Is this a common thing for promotional pages? If I consider the history, as well as the page information, I would say delete. After the recent edits to give it the neutral point of view. I say now keep. This article now gives you the information. lbmarshall (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait until it gets secondary sources, e.g. coverage in books, journals, or other non-newsy sources such as Hoover's Company Profiles. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't particularly enjoy being the unpaid editor of someone else's commercial, but it took all of 15 minutes to render the article more or less neutral. I also don't particularly enjoy rewarding paid sock farming, and this has been proposed as a deletion criteria, but thus far it has failed to gain consensus as far as I can tell. Unlike AfD, G11 is based on article content, and not the notability of the subject. The current article, for better or worse, does contain what appears to be in-depth sustained coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately for us, vengeance is also not a valid deletion criteria, but if someone wants to propose a consensus on the issue, I might be in favor. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pace Timothy, this is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia. Numerous accounts registered over a period of months for the sole purpose of repeatedly creating an article on a frankly trivial company. I would be astonished if this was not COI, and I do not think we should ever reward spammers. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: AfD is not limited to deletions based on the lack of notability. WP:DEL-CONTENT explicitly says that "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be ... completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." In fact, AfD is for deleting for any WP:DEL-REASON. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I believe in its current state, after a handful of removals, it meets that standard. I have every sympathy, and if someone wants to get consensus on undisclosed paid editing as a valid reason for deletion, I will vote in favor, but that is currently not a valid argument for deletion, and the arguments above which rest on it should be disregarded. The requirement that it receive coverage above and beyond "newsy" articles should be disregarded as well as trouted as completely arbitrary. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it is distasteful to condone an article that was created in this manner, but in its present state there are no issues with verifiability or NPOV, and the topic is notable having sufficient levels of coverage in independent RS. With thousands of drivers and users, and having spread throughout Asia in a couple of years while creating a new service industry, it doesn't seem "trivial" to me.MB 04:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although created as promotional spam, I think this article is now a perfectly acceptable article.Oliverrushton (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article as it stands isn't overly promotional and meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After rescued by editors, it does seem to be fine now and with reliable sources used. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Comment’’’ As the creating editor, I would like to apologise for the issues with all the previous attempts on behalf of GoGoVan. GoGoVan outsourced the previous attempts to a Wikipedia freelancer and until recently, the company didn’t realise the harm/damage he had caused.

As a member of GoGoVan’s staff, I was recently tasked to create a neutral page. This was following the poor attempts by the freelancer and to abide by Wikipedia’s policies as I did so. I would therefore like to distance myself from all previous attempts as they didn’t have anything to do with me or this account. I see the article has now been edited down to improve the article, so thank you to those who have helped so far.

In regards to the conflict of interest, it was never my intention to deceive. GoGoVan takes ethics very seriously and it was always the intention to notify Wikipedia editors of my conflict after I created the article. However, this has all developed very quickly since I uploaded the article two days ago and I am still reading up on the best way to declare my conflict of interest and exactly what to say.

I would hope that this can be a fresh start with creating an article for GoGoVan and the discussion can remain positive and constructive. I also hope the content can be judged as a standalone attempt. Killbill263 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 January 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.