Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahu (2nd nomination)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahu[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY - or in other words, the usual start up spam. Few business-as-usual/startup-gets funding in sites like Techcrunch that tend to publish a new entry each time someone sneezes in a start-up. The short (rotted: archive) entry for million of users is dubious, I wouldn't be surprised if this is based on non-verifiable press release. No significance in the wider world. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. We are getting too much corporate spam lately. RoCo^(talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lately? Article created in 2008. 96.127.244.11 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By "lately" I meant nowadays. The statement does not refer to this article. RoCo^(talk) 05:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you gave and the nom's arguments are about recent spammy articles. this one is 9 years old.96.127.244.11 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the nom referred to it as "start up spam". But then, how old must an organisation be to escape the "start up" label? I don't think there's a clear cut limit for the term. And coming to my statement, it's not particularly about this article, and is just a general observation from my part. RoCo^(talk) 08:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some kids opened a web site for two years, like all sorts of others that come and go. Does not matter if it is a "start up" or not, or who long ago the article was created, it needs to be noticed for more than once or twice for just existing to meet notability levels. W Nowicki (talk) 18:37, 23 April 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.