Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ChinICT

The deletion of the CHINICT article is unjustified
This article was published in 2011—and reviewed and edited countless times by numerous established Wikipedia users. Its deletion is, therefore unjustified.

As a consequence, the exact motivations of 3-month-old anonymous user ‘Bobs at 9’ to delete this article are questionable—to say the least (personal agenda or vendetta?).

Indeed, despite the misrepresenting allegations made by ‘Bobs at 9’—this article—since its publication in 2011, it has been:

1. Reviewed and edited countless times by many established Wikipedia users—including Drmies, BD2412, CrystalBlacksmith], Praxidicae, Audacity, DGG, MarioGom, Rathfelder, Jon Kolbert, Newyorkadam, DaltonCastle, Edwardx, Timrollpickering, Bender235, Agne27, Trident13, Ground Zero, GoingBatty, Jevansen, Malcolma, Bearcat, and Chzz.

2. Backed by many mainstream sources—including TechCrunch, Fortune, InformationWeek, The Huffington Post, Les Échos, GSMA, and Oracle. Chemonges001 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I never reviewed this article. Do not mistake editing as an endorsement. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Same as Prax. Literally the only time I've ever touched this article in my life was on an AWB batch run a couple of weeks after its initial creation, in which all I did was tag it as uncategorized because it didn't have any categories on it yet. That is in no way whatsoever an endorsement of its content, and you do not have permission to invoke my name as if "Bearcat endorses it, so booyah!" were the trump card an AFD discussion. Argue the merits of the content and sourcing, in the main discussion and not on the talk page, and keep my name out of your mouth in the process. And besides, how on earth would a brand new user have any knowledge of who the established and reputable editors around here are, anyway? The answer is you're not really a new user, are you? You're a sockpuppet of a previously-banned user exactly as has been claimed, aren't you? Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chemonges001: The goal of was to change Blackberry to BlackBerry, and that was 10 years ago.  I did not review the article (or its references) to determine if it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for events.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. Combing the edit history to see who has gnomed the page is of no help, and neither are most of the named sources. BD2412  T 16:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chemonges001: I suggest that discussions about the validity of the specific sources in the article should happen on Articles for deletion/ChinICT, not here. Note that it is the content of each source that is important - not just the publisher.  Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)