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. The article currently covers the subject in a manner that relies too much on primary sources to be retained. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being
re-created immediately with proper sourcing.) —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - overuse of primary sources, not noteworthy in the slightest. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.178.67.39 (
talk •
contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2016
Delete as it stands (without prejudice) - there's one news link, which is Bill Thompson from the BBC writing up his visit to one. Almost everything else is primary, and the BBC link is the only RS -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
this isn't primary,
nor this,
nor this,
nor this. Some of the coverage is more substantial than others to be sure, but it seems to be enough to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH. to be sure. The current state of an article isn't why we delete , unless it's egregiously bad and not worth retaining, as you well know as an admin. I'd argue that is not the case here and of course Afd is
WP:NOTCLEANUP. There are indeed too many primary sources but that's a matter for tagging and editing, not deletion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
First link: total coverage is "Ten submissions feature Bengaluru data, says Johann Recordon, project manager of Lift Conference, which brought the exhibition to India with swissnex India." That's it. Second is a blog (it even calls itself a blog), and reads like a press release or paid blog content. Third is a second piece of RS coverage, yes, thank you. Fourth: total mention is "Seedstars World winner will be announced during the Final Event that will be hosted on the first day of Lift Conference, one of the top innovation and tech conferences in Europe." in a site that calls itself a "blog". This is super-skimpy, and for something claiming such a long record, two RSes ever is dismal. It's also not clear why you're putting self-proclaimed blogs forward as RSes -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Rude Baguette does indeed call itself a "blog," as in "France’s Startup Blog – an English-language publication covering the French tech market." It has an editorial team, I see, and bylined articles. I'd never heard of it but as far as I can see it's RS, it does appear to meet
WP:USERG.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is of course a "usable reference," per
WP:V at the very least. And ORGDEPTH suggests that mentions like this in multiple sources, when combined with more in-depth coverage, may be of use in establishing notability when combined with more substantial coverage -- though the wording is up to different interpretations. That said, I may change my !vote to neutral if nothing else comes up.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)reply
In fact, I'll go there right now: change to neutral. No one disputes that we have about two strong references establishing notability, then a lot of passing references -- or in the case of the French tech blog, a possibly affiliated source. I think the problem here is how the article has been expanded with so many primary refs, by multiple IP editors, to where it does seem like Wikipedia may be being misused per
WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is one case where, if the editors had simply created a balanced short stub, with the bona fide RS that are out there, we wouldn't in all likelihood be at Afd. Because there's enough coverage that this article probably falls just shy of GNG. But in its current state,
WP:TNT arguably applies.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notability issue addressed. I've added sources to the
article's talk page. We should improve, not delete flawed content. 5 incoming wikilinks indicate interest in and potentially notability of this material. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, nothing new here, I just copied the sources from the discussion above for use later. I now appreciate that
David Gerard is not in agreement that notability has been established. I feel it has and I think the article should be kept and improved. ~
Kvng (
talk)
13:11, 27 January 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.
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. The article currently covers the subject in a manner that relies too much on primary sources to be retained. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being
re-created immediately with proper sourcing.) —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - overuse of primary sources, not noteworthy in the slightest. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.178.67.39 (
talk •
contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2016
Delete as it stands (without prejudice) - there's one news link, which is Bill Thompson from the BBC writing up his visit to one. Almost everything else is primary, and the BBC link is the only RS -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
this isn't primary,
nor this,
nor this,
nor this. Some of the coverage is more substantial than others to be sure, but it seems to be enough to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH. to be sure. The current state of an article isn't why we delete , unless it's egregiously bad and not worth retaining, as you well know as an admin. I'd argue that is not the case here and of course Afd is
WP:NOTCLEANUP. There are indeed too many primary sources but that's a matter for tagging and editing, not deletion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
First link: total coverage is "Ten submissions feature Bengaluru data, says Johann Recordon, project manager of Lift Conference, which brought the exhibition to India with swissnex India." That's it. Second is a blog (it even calls itself a blog), and reads like a press release or paid blog content. Third is a second piece of RS coverage, yes, thank you. Fourth: total mention is "Seedstars World winner will be announced during the Final Event that will be hosted on the first day of Lift Conference, one of the top innovation and tech conferences in Europe." in a site that calls itself a "blog". This is super-skimpy, and for something claiming such a long record, two RSes ever is dismal. It's also not clear why you're putting self-proclaimed blogs forward as RSes -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Rude Baguette does indeed call itself a "blog," as in "France’s Startup Blog – an English-language publication covering the French tech market." It has an editorial team, I see, and bylined articles. I'd never heard of it but as far as I can see it's RS, it does appear to meet
WP:USERG.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is of course a "usable reference," per
WP:V at the very least. And ORGDEPTH suggests that mentions like this in multiple sources, when combined with more in-depth coverage, may be of use in establishing notability when combined with more substantial coverage -- though the wording is up to different interpretations. That said, I may change my !vote to neutral if nothing else comes up.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)reply
In fact, I'll go there right now: change to neutral. No one disputes that we have about two strong references establishing notability, then a lot of passing references -- or in the case of the French tech blog, a possibly affiliated source. I think the problem here is how the article has been expanded with so many primary refs, by multiple IP editors, to where it does seem like Wikipedia may be being misused per
WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is one case where, if the editors had simply created a balanced short stub, with the bona fide RS that are out there, we wouldn't in all likelihood be at Afd. Because there's enough coverage that this article probably falls just shy of GNG. But in its current state,
WP:TNT arguably applies.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notability issue addressed. I've added sources to the
article's talk page. We should improve, not delete flawed content. 5 incoming wikilinks indicate interest in and potentially notability of this material. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, nothing new here, I just copied the sources from the discussion above for use later. I now appreciate that
David Gerard is not in agreement that notability has been established. I feel it has and I think the article should be kept and improved. ~
Kvng (
talk)
13:11, 27 January 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.