Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISRO-Devas S band Scam


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ISRO-Devas S band Scam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article appears to cover a potentially controversial government contract from India; there are, however, no references provided to support the article, which is (if incorrect) inherently defamatory. Moreover there is no indication that this is anything more than a news story; while it is noted that there is a Parliamentary investigation, Wikipedia does not exist to speculate or presuppose - if it can be shown that there is widespread coverage, or the investigation later raises this event above the level of a mere news story, we can have an article. Until then, there is no indication that it is anything more than a standard, albeit slightly shady, contracted undertaking between a government and a private party. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The title is very problematic. It isn't Wikipedia's job to mark something as a scam in the title. If the closing admin decides to keep this, it is absolutely vital that it is renamed to something non-defamatory. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be based on a news article. If some sense can be made of it, and if we can find more sources, perhaps we can call, the wikinewsies! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possibly transwiki; Wikinews isn't my department). The best I can tell (which isn't all that perfectly; reading this article gives me the feeling that there's some sense somewhere in there, if there if I can only just find it, but no matter how many times I read, I can't), this is a narrative of an ongoing news story. No evidence of encyclopedic value, and not even any real context provided to use in building some. In addition, Tom Morris makes a good point about the article title being problematic in and of itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:52, 21 July 2011 (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.