Talk:List of Reliance scams

NPOV

This article has a NPOV template but no explanation as to how it is not neutral. This doesn't mean it is neutral, it simply needs an explanation. Rubbish computer 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There was some weasel wording in the lead. This article appears to be partially biased against Reliance. Rubbish computer 16:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How I can proof that RCom scams please talk sir Pgangwani35 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

scams done by RCom

Scams done by RCom how I can proof please guide me Pgangwani35 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be complaining as though you thought the article belonged to Reliance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its articles summarize what is published by reliable sources like newspapers. —teb728 t c 08:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined PROD

Given the alleged COI editing on the main Reliance page, and the fact that the PROD was proposed by an ISP that resolves back to Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, I removed the proposed deletion notice on this page. While I do have some reservations about the page - in particular, the title should probably be changed to something less inflammatory - it is well-sourced and should go to AfD rather than PROD if there are concerns about it. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Article has been tagged by an IP with a possible Conflict of Interest (IP shows as owned by the company that is the subject of the article), as was the case for the previous deletion tag. While there are issues with the article, I do not believe it meets the speedy deletion criteria listed. The IP lists CSD G3 (pure vandalism/blatant hoax) which is clearly not the case - the article included quite a few references and accurately represented what they stated. The IP also lists CSD G10 (disparagement). Per G10: "Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced"; there are no legal threats listed, the article is not about a person who can be harassed or intimidated, and the material would not count as libelous since it is, again, accurately representing what is in the sources. The fact that the corporation in question doesn't like it doesn't make it G10. While it is possible the article's material should be merged into the main page (which also has a history of COI editing), the proper process is, in my opinion, AfD, not speedy or PROD.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Also, the tag lists G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion); how this is compatible with it being an attack page is left as an exercise for the reader. The page clearly does not meet G11.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

PohranicniStraze and to whomever is reading this reply - To assume that using a network connection provided by a concern of the organization in question which caters to a population of more than 1.3 billion people is remarkably unmerited. Using that argument (which the contesting user has earmarked as the main reason for the removal of both PROD and Speedy) is not substantial enough. Using the same argument would make me cynical about all the edits that happen on pages of international network brands like Verizon and AT&T. Hoping that this serves as an explanation cum counter-argument, let me come to the actual points -

• 1. CSD G3 - "...pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation..." - would like to inform the uninitiated - as only people following the Indian business sector would know this - the organization in question was split into two some years ago. While this article's lead section talks aboout one of these split entities, further along the article also mentions about the other entity. That is what I meant by misinformation where the reader may not be able to distinguish between the entities. From a Wikipedia POV, that (misinformation) is a huge issue. and that's where G3 comes in, but I could be wrong. It's not only about hoax which the contesting user has given the ONLY prominence to. Even if this is not the case, I beg to differ on the following policies:
• 2. CSD G10 - The contesting user is only quoting half information. An attack page is not just about a person. It can be of any subject. "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject..." In my opinion, starting from the article's title to the last word, disparaging the subject is the primary objective. The fact that the article uses words like "main allegations" is beyond me as Wikipedia does not support speculative data. Just having sources - whatever they may say - is not enough for an article to exist.
• 3. CSD G11 - I somehow agree with the contesting user, but the reason I added it was because of the understanding that "promotion" does not always have to be positive. Negative promotion is a thing and that's what the article basically is. This would be an easier exercise for the reader, hopefully.

All in all, I think there is enough ground for a discussion to be started on whether this page (and others found here) should exist. Issues like content forking and the inability to create a neutral point of view are also stark and must be addressed. This is definitely not a textbook issue and I hope somebody writes an essay on this issue on WP.

Largely speaking, the contesting user seems to be convinced that this PROD and CSD tags are being carried out by the organization, which sparks the issue of unbiased opinion. Therefore, I will go ahead and start an AfD with the hope that an unbiased discussion will take place based on what's there on the page and not what is being made out of what's there behind. 2405:204:A8:6E73:F83A:FD9:8CC7:667E (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Reliance scams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016020845/http://www.ril.com/downloads/pdf/39th_rilagm2013.pdf to http://www.ril.com/downloads/pdf/39th_rilagm2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)