Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titan Sports Plus


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Titan Sports Plus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may be notable, but if it is, there's absolutely nothing in the English language to indicate that this is the case. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete its spam Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Titan Sports (newspaper) as a plausible redirect; a whole lot of words to tell us 'this is the paper's mobile app'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mrschimpf, that is one of a half dozen other articles of dubious notability created by this apparent COI SPA. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging me to the SPA issues; looking at that article closer, I would have to switch to a delete based on that.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I've been trying to combat this spam article for a while now. Had the original deleted before. Nothing has changed since then.★Trekker (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

So far the key issue is to confirm the 'notability' of the object of the article.

For the reference, I used one reference of the self-introduction of the object on its official website and a reference from a third-party, which is from 163.com, a top 4 Chinese portal website. One reference from an 'insider' point of view and a reference from an 'outsider' point of view, I believe, is enough to keep the description neutral. And two references for a 100-word article is enough, I think. When I wrote this article, I just tried to catch the key points of the object. So far I think the introduction is neat and clean. Any suggestions to improve the notability of the object? Shall I send more Chinese third-party reports on this object? (I did not put up many of them as I think too many references are not helpful to the quality of an article, like an academic essay.) For the photos, they seem to have more photos with sports celebrities. But one is enough (with Isinyayeva), I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see those sources being very notability granting, your draft was not accepted but you still went ahead and added the article once again. I seriously suspect this is a form of spamming. Also, sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as promo content for an unremarkable app. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (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.