Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Newspaper

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. → Call me Hahc21 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Newspaper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, appears promotional. Dolescum (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, quite possibly speedyable under G11. Jinkinson talk to me 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first paragraph of this article was a direct copy from the website of a firm called CCBUL, probably not unsurprisingly as the article was contributed by the WP:SPA account User:Wikiccbul. Note also that the speedy-deletion tag was removed by User:Sugunan1234. Conversely, the article CCBUL, contributed by User:Sugunan1234, had its speedy-deletion tag removed by User:Wikiccbul, indicating an element of reciprocal editing. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current article is low quality and suffers from unsubstantiated claims and its author's apparent impression that the English language uses capital letters rather than the definite article. Looking more broadly, I can see sporadic use of this term dating back to 1992, so there is a question of whether to keep and improve or to WP:TNT? My view is that the term is insufficiently prevalent at this time, so better deleted. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong DeleteArticle appears promotional, and User:wikiccbul and User:Sugunan1234 seem to be socks, like AllyD suggested. Zince34' 10:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable newspaper. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD, I think this article should be improved and also Use of English language should not be a consideration for deletion.( Lets be fair enough with the author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.26 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is grammatical deficiency an argument for retention. If you think that this unreferenced article should be retained, can you advance an an argument based on it having demonstrable notability? AllyD (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2014 (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.