Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Riders Technology

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 speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 02:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Riders Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This article has been written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) and representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All third party sources are notable from News Channel in India and other authority site. --Salman S. Shaikh (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It looks like all content are verifiable and providing a citation to a reliable source such as New channel in India. --PaulaEdwards (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does this fail WP:ORG, several of the references cited do not remotely say what the citations claim they do. This makes me very leery of the trustworthiness of the article as a whole. --Ashenai (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It does look like notable and verifiable and presented according to NPOV. --Raj Abraham (Isaac) (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users Salman S. Shaikh, PaulaEdwards and Raj Abraham (Isaac) appear to be WP:SOCK. Have very few edits and all three managed to vote in this AfD. I am raising a WP:SPI investigation against them. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, references that are clearly bad intentioned etc.--Savonneux (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - references like the KohraM article are not reliable, Kohram is a newly established "news and opinion" website. The referenced source article (ref #3, #8) fails basic journalistic standards and sounds more like a blog post (which it probably is). Ref #7 was written by a "mobile phone repair technician" (per author info). The article contains several exaggerated unverified claims and no reliable sources about a non-notable company (Google search found nothing interesting either). GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to speedy - per CSD G5, creation by a blocked user with no significant additions from others. GermanJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2015 (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.