Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QueryHome

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. A number of sources were suggested, but they don't appear to have been accepted as WP:RS by other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QueryHome

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

Lacks sufficient coverage by third-party reliable sources to establish notability; thus may not meet WP:GNG. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - The subject does have sources, see the below references and and suggest me whether references can be included in the subject article or not.

Overview of the QueryHome
Interview and knowledge about QueryHome
QueryHome Company information
News on launching of GK in QueryHome

please review the references and give me valuable suggestion to improve the subject article.

--@indra 07:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

References

These sources may not be reliable. Interviews are often treated as primary sources, which may not be independent of the subject. Three of the four aforementioned examples may be primary sources or interviews, and the rezul.com source is a blog, which may not have proper editorial controls or a reputation for reliability. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviewing, I wasn't knowing about the references that these links can be treated as primary sources also the Rezul.com is blogging website. I will find other news and journal if has published about the subject eventually will add to the article. -- @indra ^[talk] 12:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to either include them into article soon™ or provide them here as evidence the subject meets notability requirements. WP:RS and WP:V offer guidance in this regard. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No acceptable evidence of notability. Wikipedia requires citations of reliable independent published sources, with significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we only require that coverage by reliable sources exists; it need not necessarily be cited within article to meet WP:GNG (an article could have only one citation, but millions of external articles written about the subject in numerous reputable publications). Such coverage has thus far not been demonstrated... -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Atindrakn: Your ability to raise reliable and independent references is important to this debate and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt with this relist. KaisaL (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, @KaisaL: for relisting this Article before coming in any conclusion. I have collected some set of references through Googling it and other various websites. Mostly of them are external links. I couldn't find any newspapers, articles, journals or scholars yet. If any other user who finds some references that will be great help for this article.

Some website links and references are as follows

Some Extra Sources

startuptalky.com prlog.org crunchbase.com corporatedir.com informix.in f6s.com kontora.in companiesmate.com allcompanydata.com companywiki.in filingmantra.com clickindia.com mycorporation.in mycompanydir.com datafox.com motivateme.in owler.com allcompanieslist.com owler.com

Please review these references and source and give me some healthy suggestion, that these links and references can be included in the article or can be act as thirds party references.Atindrakn ^[talk] 18:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

None of these appear to be reliable sources or actually discuss the topic; they're instead metadata, spam, job listings or self published information (forums etc.). We require at least media organizations similar to The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, The Hindu, Dainik Jagran and so forth, to cover the company or product in some detail.
By the way: Not end of the world is article doesn't remain; are plenty of WP:Alternative outlets where such content could reside. One might consider those... or lobbying the Press to cover the company. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still found nothing actually convincing of its own notability, nothing listed is actually convincing of any actual improvements too. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As all reviewed the references and I also found that there is no Newspaper article been published yet. But is there any page where this article can be publish in any wiki space. Suggestion me? Atindrakn ^[talk] 15:38, 12 July 2016 (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.