- 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. ✗ plicit 11:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Planet42
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Planet42 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP, and is WP:ADMASQ with WP:CITEKILL/ WP:BOMBARD FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I have not reviewed the 28 references, and a reviewer is not expected to review the 28 references that this article has been reference-bombed with. When an author pushes an article back into article space twice after it has been draftified twice (by User:Jupitus Smart and User:Jovanmilic97, there are at least two possible explanations: either they are being paid, or they are not here to edit collaboratively. The lede sentence is a blurb, and the rest of the article isn't any more neutral. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- An article may be very bad, and its author may behave badly, without the notability of the subject being compromised. There do seem to be half a dozen reasonable references. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT. The article is not very NPOV and the references section is larger than the rest of the article! As for whether or not it passes GNG, I think it's on the line. If someone were motivated enough to HEY, I might change my !vote. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This topic is about a company/organization so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:27, 26 February 2022 (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 delete. ✗ plicit 11:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Planet42
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Planet42 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP, and is WP:ADMASQ with WP:CITEKILL/ WP:BOMBARD FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I have not reviewed the 28 references, and a reviewer is not expected to review the 28 references that this article has been reference-bombed with. When an author pushes an article back into article space twice after it has been draftified twice (by User:Jupitus Smart and User:Jovanmilic97, there are at least two possible explanations: either they are being paid, or they are not here to edit collaboratively. The lede sentence is a blurb, and the rest of the article isn't any more neutral. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- An article may be very bad, and its author may behave badly, without the notability of the subject being compromised. There do seem to be half a dozen reasonable references. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT. The article is not very NPOV and the references section is larger than the rest of the article! As for whether or not it passes GNG, I think it's on the line. If someone were motivated enough to HEY, I might change my !vote. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This topic is about a company/organization so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:27, 26 February 2022 (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.