Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAv6

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. v/r - T P 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NAv6

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

The article had previously been left with a stale construction tag that was removed. It was then Proded. Article was deproded by a single edit anon IP without addressing the underlying concern. It appears that there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are 3 Google Books hits on this and about 50 in Google Scholar, all from papers written by this group (National Advanced IPv6 Centre) or citations thereof. Not enough in my view. If they had more citations I'd be inclined to keep it. There are also about a dozen Google News hits, mostly experts from this group being cited. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the original author of this page. I have added references from newspapers, but this is not a Research organisation that is likely to have a cover story in the NYT. Most references will be joint collaboration announcements by people like ITU, APNIC, IPv6 Forum, etc. I request guidance, please. - Sanjeev Gupta 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is to establish wp:notability for the subject in accordance with wp:notability. And the core of that would be finding and referencing substantive coverage of the subject by independent sources. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets General notability guidelines with the current inclusion of this Star Publications article in the Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage based on media briefings is not independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing reference in The Star doesn't confer notability. Article seems like advertisement to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 13 September 2011 (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.