Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISPIRT


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  07:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

ISPIRT

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On its face, this is an A7, but another editor removed the tag. Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Might have been stub eligible if someone who spoke english wanted to fix it.    Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That aside about speaking English is uncalled for. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: As the editor who removed the speedy I was aware versions of the article existed which had higher levels of content and references and WP:SPEEDY should not be used in anything but the most obvious of cases and with the history this was not obvious. I had backed out a previous attempt to improve this article as I was concerned I might not have been neutral and maybe something else in my head too ... I recall I'd come across this article due to a possible link/relationship from another article.  I pulled back my previous effort and added a little to it.  The references in the current incarnation pass WP:GNG and notability requirements and it can hardly be said to be a pure advertisement.  Yes it can be re-written a lot better, yes the infobox can be expanded ... we have Wikipedeans who love to do that.  I'm not sure a WP:BEFORE or other options rather than nominate for deletion were properly explored before this nomination.   comment is interesting.  There may have been an implication that someone (possibly me?) could rewrite to demonstrate notabilty and may have been due to existance of the earlier version (that is meant to be considered at AfD).  Anyway to put a long story short I raised Sockpuppet investigations/Cheerio042/Archive suggesting Coffeeluvr613 for investigation as a sock puppet.  If I am not mistake investigation was handled by article nominator which was perhaps unfortunate and a very much WP:AGF this was the case due to non-neutral involvement however I recognise  gets through a lot of work and may not have clocked linkage until too late in the process.  I'd suggestion people look at the article in its current state and not in its .  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I admit a WP:TROUTing for somehow failing to recognise Coffeeluvr613 had been blocked as evidenced on their user page (let alone probably the block log) and for some reason I had thought had not so and I apologise unreservedly.  The Keep remains and the key point the current article is very different for the one nominated for deletion.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has grown since it was nominated from this to this, with several decent references. The references are from archived material, which it harder to find using Google searches - there may be more. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs are organisation blurb and I can't find anything to support notability on the web. I opened most of the refs and I'm not supportive of the new refs. I'd have preferred this going via CSD. It is a relatively new "talking shop" which can disappear as quick as it appeared. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 'I'd have preferred it going by a CSD' .... My eyes are rolling at that statement because the article had opportunity of expansion. Opening (not reading) some of references seems somewhat insufficient.  Once notable always notable so if is disappears it isn't an issue.  India stack is acknowledging iSPIRT on its about page  and secondary sources acknowledge the link.  I am fascinated the Aadhaar currently does not link to India Stack; and that India Stack does not currently link to ISPIRT, as there are sources to enable this.  Yes there may be bits of likely puffery by India Stack and iSPIRT about there importance but that is not a reason to not have an article.  I have by the way looked at a India Stack/iSpirt merge and while there is commonality there is also significant differences and unrelated scope which is a very good reason to keep them separate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Sympathy with the nom but per WP:HEY and, this has been improved. A basic google search gives more WP:GNG from good RS; for example, WP:SIGCOV in The Economic Times, and good coverage in Forbes India, and Quartz India, and The Hindu.  It appears in many other tech-sites and indic-sites (I can't tell whether they are all RS and what grade), but, notwithstanding the agreed need for further work, it seems to at least meet a technical pass of GNG, and it is being reported on by solid RS. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Keep Here are two sources in the article (among others) that provide significant coverage of ISPIRIT:Djm-leighpark has significantly improved the article, as noted by SilkTork. Britishfinance and Jovanmilic97 have pointed out other sources. The subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)</ul>
 * Keep Besides the sources Britishfinance has mentioned (all valid, reliable and WP:SIGCOV), there is also The Ken, Business Standard , Scroll.in , Computerworld (a commentary even on whether it would succeed or not) . Meets WP:NCORP easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.