- 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. Some concern has been expressed about the nomination and I suggest the nominator takes note of these. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aseel (website) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a web start-up in Afghanistan. While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not read
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG to mean that notability relies on the content of the Wikipedia article.
Amirah
talk
10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also Whiteguru you already said this on my talk page, and I asked you to explain what you meant by it as a don't see where you get your reasoning from the guidelines you have quoted. Instead of responding to my request for an explanation, so that I may understand the guidelines and not repeat the same, you nominate the article for deletion. I am not a new user, but I am new to creating pages outside my subject area. At the moment I am totally feeling like giving up on Wikipedia despite my many contributions over the years. It is behaviour like yours that leads to this. Amirah talk 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:ARTN. Amirah talk 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I actually think you should have your new page reviewer privileges revoked because I don't think you understand the Wikipedia policies on deletion, (correct me if I am wrong), and when you messaged my talk page and I asked you to explain what you meant, then instead of explaining you simply ignored me and put the article up for deletion. That is not a good way to treat another editor, who is simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. Amirah talk 10:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I could easily edit the article and add further content to it, but before doing so I want to understand which one of us is right in this discussion, so that I am not left with any misunderstanding which may effect my future editing of Wikipedia. So would somebody please respond and let me know. Is there any validity in the grounds Whiteguru has given for deletion or not? Amirah talk 10:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The nomination is just nonsense. As AmirahBreen has correctly pointed out, the notability guidelines do not depend on the amount of content in the article, but they do depend on having suitable references. Therefore "While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article" is an argument for keeping the article, and perhaps expanding it, emphatically not an argument for deletion. The references do show notability. JBW ( talk) 19:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, the nomination argument is nonsensical, notability rests on reliable sources, and passing notability guidlines, not on content in the article. . For an extreme hypothetical example, even if the Joe Biden article had one sentence about his election to the presidency, and no other information, that article would still clearly be notable because it meets the WP:GNG. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 01:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs to be developed. The website is recent, but the few references that are provided are serious. Lagoyan ( talk) 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as relevant notability guidelines are satisfied by the non-trivial coverage received from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Some concern has been expressed about the nomination and I suggest the nominator takes note of these. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aseel (website) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a web start-up in Afghanistan. While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not read
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG to mean that notability relies on the content of the Wikipedia article.
Amirah
talk
10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also Whiteguru you already said this on my talk page, and I asked you to explain what you meant by it as a don't see where you get your reasoning from the guidelines you have quoted. Instead of responding to my request for an explanation, so that I may understand the guidelines and not repeat the same, you nominate the article for deletion. I am not a new user, but I am new to creating pages outside my subject area. At the moment I am totally feeling like giving up on Wikipedia despite my many contributions over the years. It is behaviour like yours that leads to this. Amirah talk 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:ARTN. Amirah talk 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I actually think you should have your new page reviewer privileges revoked because I don't think you understand the Wikipedia policies on deletion, (correct me if I am wrong), and when you messaged my talk page and I asked you to explain what you meant, then instead of explaining you simply ignored me and put the article up for deletion. That is not a good way to treat another editor, who is simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. Amirah talk 10:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I could easily edit the article and add further content to it, but before doing so I want to understand which one of us is right in this discussion, so that I am not left with any misunderstanding which may effect my future editing of Wikipedia. So would somebody please respond and let me know. Is there any validity in the grounds Whiteguru has given for deletion or not? Amirah talk 10:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The nomination is just nonsense. As AmirahBreen has correctly pointed out, the notability guidelines do not depend on the amount of content in the article, but they do depend on having suitable references. Therefore "While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article" is an argument for keeping the article, and perhaps expanding it, emphatically not an argument for deletion. The references do show notability. JBW ( talk) 19:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, the nomination argument is nonsensical, notability rests on reliable sources, and passing notability guidlines, not on content in the article. . For an extreme hypothetical example, even if the Joe Biden article had one sentence about his election to the presidency, and no other information, that article would still clearly be notable because it meets the WP:GNG. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 01:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs to be developed. The website is recent, but the few references that are provided are serious. Lagoyan ( talk) 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as relevant notability guidelines are satisfied by the non-trivial coverage received from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.