Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsInn


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NewsInn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG &mdash; the references provided don't show any significant independent coverage, and I've failed to find anything else. The first two refs both seem to refer to the same original research paper (which admittedly, was published in a journal). The latter relate to the official website. Original article was a direct copy from the research paper (which would be a copyright violation) though this has since been slightly re-worded. Interesting to note the author's comments The Publication appeared at the end of November 2015, so one can not expect to be cited in a month in this edit which appears to acknowledge a lack of coverage. I would suggest that the driver to write the article may have been promotional in nature, and at best this article is WP:TOOSOON about a still emerging company / technology. There's a clear conflict of interest given it appears to have been written by the algorithm's author. Note that the article has previously been de-tagged for speedy deletion, and de-prodded, hence bringing to AFD since there's clearly some contention. (Though, for the record, I'm not particularly disagreeing that the article wasn't sufficiently promotional to merit deletion under CSD G11).└ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. As a courtesy, pinging author along with  who tagged for speedy deletion,  who declined the speedy, and  who proded; any of whom may wish to contribute to this discussion.  └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - an algorithm published in a minor journal less than two months ago will need a lot of evidence to be considered notable enough for its own article. This doesn't look like enough. Blythwood (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability. It was published in November 2015. It fails notability until it has received "significant independent coverage". Yes, you cannot expect this from such a recent article, but that only shows that such a recent article does not yet need a Wikipedia article. Once it has become notable, feel free to re-add a article here (although it would be better if someone independent considered it to be worth doing so). HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's nothing here to suggest a better notable article and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  01:19, 6 January 2016 (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.