Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Startup Incubator

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 no consensus for Plan 9 Startup Incubator; delete Techhub Connect. Kurykh (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 Startup Incubator

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

Non-notable startup incubator, failing WP:CORP.

Also included for the same reason and being edited by the same account is this article on a related organization:

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I fight promos, there seems to be sufficient coverage to ascertain significance, if not outright notability of Plan 9. Primarily, this is not a company, so WP:CORP does not apply. It is a government programme which has been widely covered in Pakistani[1] and international [2] media, and it was substantially more than a cursory mention as evidenced by the included reference list. In my view, the subject well satisfies WP:N and the article will likely be looked up by Pakistani readers. — kashmiri ^TALK 01:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kashmiri: Right, Plan 9 may squeek by, but what about Techhub Connet (yeah, that's the problem with multiple articles in one nomination, being lazy is not good here - note to nom...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Thanks, didn't notice this was a multiple nomination. Techhub Connect seems to be just one of many short-term projects undertaken by PITB [3] and in my opinion does not satisfy GNG on its own; on a cursory glance, the majority of links in the Techhub Connect article do not count as references as they don't even mention the subject. So, delete for me. Plan 9, on the other hand, is an ongoing programme currently in its 6th year and widely published in the press. The two seem entirely different, so merging might not be an option, although some links seem to suggest that the project is carried out within the framework of Plan 9 programme. — kashmiri ^TALK 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per the coverage available, as also noted by Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at all of the references and without exception, they fail WP:RS. None are independent (and intellectually independent) third party articles. They are all either advertorials (with the usual "quotes" from Plan9 executives) or advertisements. For example, the Tribune articles may appear to meet the criteria - until you see all the quotes from Plan9 executives - therefore not secondary sources and not intellectually independent. Or look at the entrepeneurs.pk article - leaving aside the fact that it is a blog and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source, the article itself starts off well until you get a few paragraphs in and you realise this is naked PR and nothing more, including the obligatory photos. Not one reference is from a reliable third party source. I'm surprised we have two Keep !votes already - maybe I got it wrong .. link me an article you believe meets WP:RS and makes for a good reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 27 February 2017 (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.