Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titan Sports Plus

Titan Sports Plus

Titan Sports Plus (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)

This may be notable, but if it is, there's absolutely nothing in the English language to indicate that this is the case. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete its spam Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Titan Sports (newspaper) as a plausible redirect; a whole lot of words to tell us 'this is the paper's mobile app'. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Mrschimpf, that is one of a half dozen other articles of dubious notability created by this apparent COI SPA. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging me to the SPA issues; looking at that article closer, I would have to switch to a delete based on that. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I've been trying to combat this spam article for a while now. Had the original deleted before. Nothing has changed since then.★Trekker (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

So far the key issue is to confirm the 'notability' of the object of the article.

For the reference, I used one reference of the self-introduction of the object on its official website and a reference from a third-party, which is from 163.com, a top 4 Chinese portal website. One reference from an 'insider' point of view and a reference from an 'outsider' point of view, I believe, is enough to keep the description neutral. And two references for a 100-word article is enough, I think. When I wrote this article, I just tried to catch the key points of the object. So far I think the introduction is neat and clean. Any suggestions to improve the notability of the object? Shall I send more Chinese third-party reports on this object? (I did not put up many of them as I think too many references are not helpful to the quality of an article, like an academic essay.) For the photos, they seem to have more photos with sports celebrities. But one is enough (with Isinyayeva), I think.