Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jjaibot Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jjaibot

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 keep. Tone 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jjaibot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable software created in 2019, created by UPE, the page has traits of COI and possible UPE, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does have some news coverage but I do not believe it is significant enough. EvilxFish (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems it's an initiative to fight climate crisis...shouldn't be deleted.

That isn't relevant when considering if it warrants a Wikipedia article. EvilxFish (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are pretty bad. The International Business Times source is generally seen as unreliable. Huh, well, Entrepreneur appears to be considered reliable and notable--but that's only a brief description. It doesn't seem to succeed at "significant coverage." It's clear that there is a lot of non-US coverage, but a few of those pages are definitely unreliable, and they're hard to evaluate. Maybe consider AfC-ing on the Hindi Wikipedia and seeing if they've got any better non-English sources? (Also: This is my first AfD, so I'd be interested in feedback on my feedback if possible.) Jlevi (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to re-check the article as i have added some of the reliable source which are definitely Uk/Usa based and also i have removed the unreliable source like IBT. Bollymine (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: have enough coverage to pass wp:sigcov. Doesn't seem having unreliable sources as its been already removed!!Bollymine (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on the improvements of the cited articles Kakaey (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2019 (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.