Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Boston (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.  Sandstein  19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Asian Boston
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Self advertisement. Wcam (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Pinigng, , , , , who participated in last AfD, which ended in 'keep', and who tagged it for notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'll comment later, but I took a quick look at the old AfD and the history. The version that was kept three years ago was this version. It was kept primarily because it included a number of references from the Boston Globe (although they were not cited in text). But none of them are there now. Shortly after that AfD, a user with an obvious COI username deleted everything and replaced it with puffery. After a brief but fierce edit war, they abandoned the puffery and wrote a slightly more factual version, which is basically the version we have now. It's pretty bad. Over the next day or two I will see if I can restore this article to Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I just spent half an hour reconstructing the article and adding references, to see if it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I have concluded that it does not. It got a ton of publicity, mostly bad, when it first launched - kind of a media equivalent of BLP1E - but I found pretty much no outside coverage in the past nine years. Of course, the list of "notable people we have interviewed" does nothing for the notability of the publications or company. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per MelanieN. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2015 (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.