Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 (startup incubator)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 March 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. A redirect can be created (and contested) separately. Sandstein 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (startup incubator)

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

There was a previous AfD closed nonconsensus at an earlier article name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Startup Incubator.

Clear promotionaoism, borderline notability at best, and created just before he was banned as one of the socks of a very prolific paid editor. The sources are essentially PR, either for the organization or its projects,and such sources are no longer considered as independent enough to justify an article. At the time of the previous AfD, the extensive nature of this and the related socks was not realized. Almost all of their other creations have been deleted, mostly by G5.. As there is some question whether G5 applies in this case, and there is still just a little remaining doubt over whether the violation of the TOU means that the article should never have been here and thus be suitable for speedy deletion, I'm being conservative and bringing it here. I would support any other admin who wants to use G5. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. General Ization ^Talk02:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem notable, but its hard for these pages to exist independently with such titles. I would say that it should probably be redirected to either Startup incubator or Arfa Software Technology Park. M A A Z T A L K 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wholly wrong to redirect individual companies to a general article on the industry, or individual companies at a particular location to the location. If we did this, we would become a directory. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage as noted by Kashmiri in previous AfD, it is govt organization to promote startup culture in Pakistan so, nothing wrong with it. Passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intrinsic merits of the organization are irrelevant to notability ; so is whether it is a private or government organization. Possibly it shouldn't be that way , and I am very open to an argument for changing our rules to be less dependent on coverage by independent sourcing and more on the actual nature and size (& perhaps even quality) of the organization, but that is just not our guideline for notability of organizations. In some special fields we do do this--competition in the Olympics for example--wbut these are ones where quality has an objective standard. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although may believe it is not perfect, the current criteria for establishing notability which requires quality sources is the best criteria we have. This topic does not meet the criteria. References are either based on company announcements or rely on company personnel for quotations, etc. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 22 March 2018 (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.