Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationality as a Service

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality as a Service

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage in independent RS. (t · c) buidhe 07:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After analysing the sources cited, I added a notability template to the article a few hours ago, giving my reasoning on Talk:Nationality as a Service. To summarise, the sources are all either non-WP:RS, non-independent, or don't support the content. I can't find any real evidence that 'Nationality as a Service' has even been discussed in reliable sources, or that it is anything more than a particularly-dubious example of the interminable 'X as a service' buzzword-phraseology the English-speaking world has been blighted with over the last decade or so. The article seems to be engaging in WP:OR to even establish that the concept exists beyond being used on a couple of blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A11. This appears to be a phrase coined by a single group or maybe two related groups (that are themselves not notable) and there doesn't appear to be a single mention of it in a reliable source (as per AndyTheGrump's analysis; these are all self-published sources), even in passing (so WP:NEO). The page doesn't make a credible claim to notability and appears to be a group of people trying to give their neologism some credibility by making a wiki page for it. It seems highly likely that the person making this page either is one of the people who coined it or heard it on the podcast episode which is cited twice and aired days before the page was made. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AndyTheGrump's analysis, and checking the recent additions to the article, none of the current references appear to confer notability. Searching online I can't find any other sources that would be any better, it appears to be a neologism amongst a small group. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 28 October 2022 (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.