Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

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. Courcelles 06:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symbios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With negligible coverage in reliable sources this website fails the basic criteria for the notability of a website. Was proded earlier but an IP editor probably didn't agree to it. If it is to be considered an organization/company it again fails the related notability criteria. For me it was also a borderline case of promotion with (most probably) false claims of web ranking and financial value. And also non neutral way of writing but I would prefer community opinion over G11 in this case. SMS Talk 00:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 00:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 00:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.