Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YugaTech
- 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. ✗plicit 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- YugaTech (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)
Fails to meet WP:GNG. (Proposed deletion reason was: Multiple issues: The notability of the site or its founder has not been demonstrated (Abe Olandres redirects here); tone may be a bit promotional; almost all sources are primary sources citing itself, if there are any sources to begin with.
) 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also noted earlier at Talk:YugaTech both this article and the redirect were created by authors who have both been banned for sockpuppetry. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Question is this Tatt award enough for notability. I've seen several news articles about it but I'm not sure about its relevance in their industry. --Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: lacks wp:gng, wp:rs, no significant coverage. no contribution to the filed as per the content. looks promotional to me QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's fair that I gave people that could've voted Keep to justify the notability of the Tatt Awards. Delete as non-notable. --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.