Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nas Daily (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nas Daily

[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)

Much more elaborate than the article deleted at the earlier AfD; but the elaboration is not increase of encyclopedic content, but increase in self-indulgent promotionalism . Regardless of any possible borderline notability , this is too promotional to fix. DGG ( talk ) 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clean out the cruft and you've got a notable person who passes GNG. Check out the sources in the article: significant coverage in Business Insider, Times of Israel, Reuters, Global News, South China Morning Post, Times of Malta, and CNBC. He also has been featured in Harvard Business Review[1] and on the Today Show [2]. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP the subject has a very large following for his VLOG on Youtube and especially on Facebook. He has received RS coverage. Passes WP:GNG. He has 14.8 million facebook followers. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I listed it for deletion because Ican se no way of removing thepromotionalism without removing the entire article. In the presence of promotionalism , notability is a seconday consideration. NOT ADVOCACY is one of our core policies, and without it we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. If someone is notable , then it should be possible for someone to write a non`-p article on the subject. Either someone who wants this kept should take responsibility for editing it, or it should be deleted and someone without COI can start over, per the excellent advice in the essay WP:TNT. . DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the other "Keep" voters regarding the subject's notability, but I understand the nominator's concerns. I will try to clean up the article a bit to make it more objective, without losing any of the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have edited the article to give it a more objective tone. I have also deleted some frivolous text, but no sources have been deleted. Hopefully the article reads more satisfactorily now. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the promo concerns addressed after the editing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With respect, the consensus was clear—a unanimous "Keep" verdict—so I don't think a relisting was needed. The article is still far from perfect, true, and I would encourage others to work on it too, but there was no deviation from the opinion that the notability standards were met. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Deletion is usually reserved for articles which have no merit besides advertising, and while this is certainly biased, it can clearly be repaired and rewritten. I am going to begin improving it and I can see that it has already been tagged. Edit: Props should be given to Dflaw4 for the work they've done on the page. IphisOfCrete (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, IphisOfCrete, very nice of you to say. I see that you have also worked on the page, and hope that it can be further improved. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and referenced. No reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this person is clearly notable from the sheer volume of press coverage in a range of reputable outlets and geographies. Frankly, the proposer is wasting everybody's time and if they feel that some of the text is overly promotional they could have trimmed the article. To launch an AfD without even posting a Talk page comment is bad practice. I can't help but wonder if the proposer has an agenda against the article subject or his politics as there is no technical reason for the proposal. Mountain^cirque 09:45, 6 February 2020 (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.

Nas Daily

zproxy.org