| Revision as of 18:24, 24 December 2024 editWcquidditch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers129,925 edits Updating nomination page with notices (assisted)← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 24 December 2024 edit undoOblivy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,113 edits →Appin (company): replyTag: CDNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| * '''Keep''' per ], which clearly shows the article meets ]. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. ] (]) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' per ], which clearly shows the article meets ]. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. ] (]) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ] lists for the following topics: ] and ]. ''']''' ] ] 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ] lists for the following topics: ] and ]. ''']''' ] ] 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' as it clearly meets ] with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.{{pb}}I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @] and @] took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 24 December 2024
Appin (company)
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Appin (company) (edit | 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)
Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I verified that the first deletion was met with a string of blocks, which is why decided to send an initial message to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, following which agreed to initiate these discussions directly.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - As article creator; company clearly meets WP:GNG. If nom has WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV concerns, could those get discussed on the talk page before going to AfD? If there are WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV issues on an article for a notable subject, the remedy is to address the issues on the page, not delete. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which editors percisely are you calling possible WP:SOCKs? Regardless, even if you're right, can't we just remove whatever content they've added? NickCT (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous AfD, which clearly shows the article meets WP:NORG. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as it clearly meets WP:NORG with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @NoWarNoPeace and @John Bukka took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)