Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afranet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 May 18. 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Afranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
People have tried speedy-deletion and prod-tagging this article. Reliable sources are non-existent. I don't see it as particularly noteworthy; it claims to be a Iranian internet provider and to have 103 employees. But I could be convinced otherwise.Abductive (reasoning) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, original AfD read "Sources are non-existent." This was changed by the nominator to the current nomination.[1] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources aren't non-existent. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "new" user has singled out my AfDs, and only my AfDs, for opposition, for reasons that are unclear to me. There are no independent, reliable sources for notability for this company, although it may be that Google is confused by the fact that the company goes by Arf@net. If this user has some sources, it would be helpful to present them here. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I can post the sources in the article, not here. Your nomination is inaccurate. I am correcting the inaccuracy. You claimed at first that "sources are non-existent" you changed your nomination after you nominated the article to "reliable sources are non-existent." Neither is true.
- I'll point out that your very first edit appears to be an AfD,[2] so I'm not so sure why you, of all people, would attempt to dismiss a new user from AfDs. And your second edit. And your third edit. If there is an issue about new users and AfDs then please link to show me that I can't participate in AfDs. Otherwise stick to the topic. The topic is the deletion of this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am a returning editor. Is that why you have selected me for special attention? You have one non-independent source, the autobiographical thumbnail here. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are being wikihounded there are places to take that. If this is not an AfD, please withdraw it. Your decision. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, this is not an AfD? You seem to be attempting to disrupt/divert the normal course of my AfDs. Other people may need to take that into consideration here. Perhaps you are trying to bait me into doing some act, I'm not sure what. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep going off topic about me, so keep wondering, is this an AfD, or something else? If it's not an AfD, if it's about me, then you need to withdraw the AfD and go after me elsewhere. Your nomination was inaccurate. You seem to be nominating academics and others based on faulty criteria. I disagree with your faulty criteria. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, this is not an AfD? You seem to be attempting to disrupt/divert the normal course of my AfDs. Other people may need to take that into consideration here. Perhaps you are trying to bait me into doing some act, I'm not sure what. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are being wikihounded there are places to take that. If this is not an AfD, please withdraw it. Your decision. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am a returning editor. Is that why you have selected me for special attention? You have one non-independent source, the autobiographical thumbnail here. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "new" user has singled out my AfDs, and only my AfDs, for opposition, for reasons that are unclear to me. There are no independent, reliable sources for notability for this company, although it may be that Google is confused by the fact that the company goes by Arf@net. If this user has some sources, it would be helpful to present them here. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find any reliable sources or even teensy news reports on this. Searched google, google news, and translated some hits in Persian as well. The playground squabble above amuses me, but is unproductive IP69.226.103.13--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find any decient links for this either. I see potential for some notability, but without the reliable sources it can't really be kept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:39, 10 November 2009 (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.