Jump to content

Project:Deletion review

Add topic
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if they want to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archives}}


File:Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days. For the archive overview, see Archive.

Current requests[change]

Please undelete the page People's Insight[change]

I am writing to request the undeletion of the "People's Insight" page. We have added all necessary references and sources to the page, confirming that it pertains to an exit poll and political analysis company. We are committed to adhering to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. We assure you that we are ready and willing to promptly address any further edits or modifications that you may require to ensure the page's compliance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your positive response and the restoration of the "People's Insight" page. 009dishu (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide references here that show that this company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Griff (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable media outlets for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025, demonstrating its noteworthiness. Here are references:
  • Wikipedia's 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly Election Page: This page lists People's Insight among the pollsters that conducted exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, indicating its involvement in significant political events. en.wikipedia.org
  • NDTV Article: An article titled "Delhi Election Results 2025: BJP In, AAP Out, Exit Polls Get BJP's Capital Wapsi Right" discusses the accuracy of various exit polls, including those by People's Insight, in predicting the election outcome. ndtv.com
  • Business Standard Report: The report "Exit polls proven right in Delhi as AAP witnesses an unprecedented rout" highlights the role of different exit polls, mentioning People's Insight's contributions to the electoral analysis. business-standard.com These references demonstrate that People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable sources for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025. Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required.
009dishu (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The NDTV and Business Standard Report articles are passing mentions only, not good sources. Other Wikipedia pages are also not good sources. We may use the data in our articles, but the entity that produces the data is not automatically notable because of that reason. To show notability, there need to be multiple independent (read w:WP:NEWSORGINDIA) reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject. That's not being shown with these sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. To address the notability concerns regarding the "People's Insight" article, I have conducted an extensive search for independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, particularly in the context of the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. Here are the findings:
Our Media Coverage : peoplesinsight.in
  1. Hindustan Times Article: In an article discussing exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, Hindustan Times mentions People's Insight's projections: "People's Insight projected more than 40 seats for the Bharatiya Janata Party, giving the incumbent AAP 25 to 29 seats." hindustantimes.com
  2. Times of India Report: The Times of India, in its coverage of exit polls, notes: "According to People's Insight exit poll, the NDA is likely to get 40 to 44 seats, the AAP 25 to 29 seats." m.timesofindia.com
  3. CNBC TV18 Coverage: CNBC TV18 highlights People's Insight's predictions: "People's Insight predicts AAP winning 25-29 seats, BJP 40-44 seats and Congress 0-2 seats." cnbctv18.com This comes under Incorporating information about People's Insight's contributions and projections into broader articles related to the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections or discussions on polling agencies in India
009dishu (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@009dishu, using an AI generated reply that's basically exactly the same as the one I replied to, and ignored the points I made about significant coverage is not helpful. I get that you're employed by this company and probably are getting pushed to get something published, but responding as you are, with AI generated replies and ignoring the policy based issues that others are raising does not help and is starting to get into disruptive territory.
In short, this list of sources utterly lack significant coverage, just like the other ones you have listed. This is starting to feel like a waste of time when you don't really read the policy pages that are being linked. And please, don't even try to say your replies here aren't AI generated. They are. It's that obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I understand the need for stronger sources and better alignment with Wikipedia’s notability policies. I’ll review the guidelines again and work on finding more substantial coverage. Thanks again. 009dishu (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Who is the "we" you are referring to? Also, have you read w:WP:PAID and make the required disclosures? These are not optional, and it's part of the Terms of Use you agree to follow every time you edit. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
"Regarding the 'we' reference:
I am referring to the team or representatives of People's Insight involved in managing our public communications and ensuring accurate representation on platforms like Wikipedia.
Disclosure Compliance:
Yes, I am aware of and have read Wikipedia's Paid Contribution Disclosure Policy (WP:PAID). To comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I disclose that I am associated with People's Insight and contributing on their behalf. All edits and discussions are being made transparently to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the page in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines."
Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required. 009dishu (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Recommend continued deletion - Subject of the article does not meet notability requirements. -Griff (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence. 2405:201:5023:4046:4817:497C:4EB2:6C34 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence
009dishu (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)