Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AstroLabs

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 no consensus. Substantial debate on both sides by experienced editors after the relist suggesting that we're not close to coming to consensus on this one. A Train^talk 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLabs

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

no wvidence for notability -- just lists and brief notices DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normally I would consider the references in the article as routine announcements common with startups, but they are rather in-depth like this one which was written by the editor in chief of Entrepreneur Middle East. So they are not just the normal "they launched" but actually go into detail about it. This one from Arabian Business is also in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is actually in the current article so it's no different and therefore because it existed before, it was analyzed as part of the original AfD. How are we ever differently viewing WP:N if we're not actually paying attention in the article has and not? SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where your logic is going. Are you saying that since "that one source" (not sure what one you are referring to) is already in the article that it is not notable since the article was recommended for deletion with that reference already there? I also wouldn't be accusing editors of "not actually paying attention." If you focus purely on the article and what is there, then you are doing something wrong. You need to look beyond what is on the actual pages of Wikipedia sometimes to determine if references exist to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources linked above are routine launch publicity, as in:

"Muhammed Mekki and Louis Lebbos, co-founders of AstroLabs, warmly welcome more than 300 guests at their new co-working space."

Just a tech startup going about its business; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. after considering further comments. Yes, an "aspirational tone" is exactly what is meant by advocacy, and the rule about that is our fundamental NOT ADVOCACY. The arguments here are essentially: it advocates for something we all want, so let's keep it. A more obvious rejection of NPOV is hard to imagine. NOT ADVOCACY is more important than considerations of borderline notability . Accepting or rejecting borderline notability articles may damage the encyclopedia ,a little, but accepting advocacy destroys it. If people want to do that, it's easy enough to start a new wiki outside the Foundation. I have learned to be especially careful about advocacy I would support--it takesconscious effort to reject one's own biases. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) ;[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See source examples below. Some of the sources include interview content, but they are not comprised solely of interviews, and also contain critical analysis and overviews about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete as I examined the sources above and, not only are they clear advertising but they actually (visibly) consist of the ones currently here in the article such as The National, Entrepreneur and all of them have clear statements of either "The company says", "The company announces", "The company's employees announced", etc. and none of that satisfies WP:GNG since it explicitly says "Coverage must be significant and independent" which something having "The company's announcements said today" would not met our criteria. As usual, if the best that can be offered is the article's own current sourcing, there's absolutely nothing to examine. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations. A company reaches out to the press with information and the press decides to run with the story or not. That doesn't mean it's promotional. There is a difference between press that is paid for and press that is influenced by PR. Most publications don't knock on the doors of companies and ask them if they have a good story to tell. It all starts with PR. Some companies do better at it because they can afford while others don't. I don't see how these references - unless you can point out otherwise - were paid advertisements. Would this (and the many others based on the same announcement) be considered promotional since the headline reads "SpaceX Announces?" --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which by the way, the Fortune example above is a brief announcement. Compare that to the references I cited in my keep !vote and you will see a major difference. The ones published on AstroLabs are beyond brief mentions and general announcements. They are very in-depth and meet WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Northamerica1000 clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no evidence that The National or Entrepreneur is publishing advertising. Both are reliable sources independent of the subject that have written substantial articles about AstroLabs.
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in an attempt defending the article, an editor just above said "Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations". They are perfectly correct. Many articles in the press do indeed start that way, and getting them written is indeed part of the profession of public relations. That's exactly why we cannot use such sources for notability and why their reliability is suspect for any other purpose also. They're not independent. The profession of public relations can contribute to society by getting the word out about new ventures. There is nothing wrong with doing that in a fair way in appropriate media. When I want to find out about new things that are not yet notable, I look for press releases on Google and everyone in the world knows to do that also. . But it is not our role here. If the venture succeeds to a noteworthy extent, then there will be independent articles about it. And then, and only then, can we justifiably have an article in an encyclopedia. When I look in an encyclopedia , that's what I expect to find. And people do know that, which is why the PR people like to try to convince us that their client is sufficiently notable to have an article in our encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, my reply to SwisterTwister above was not an attempt to defend the article, but an attempt to defend the references about the article topic. Also, I am NOT advocating for the use of press releases for notability - I am not sure how anyone could advocate for using a press release for notability. When I say “PR” I am referring to the profession of “public relations,” not the term “press release.” The point to my response above is that the majority of press is influenced by public relations in some form, which sometimes does include a press release. Now, simply reprinting a press release is churnalism and involves no fact-checking and is unacceptable. However, if a publication writes a story that contains quotes from a press release, this does not automatically make it churnalism, nor should it be discounted just because they quote from the press release. If we disregard any reference that was somehow sparked by the effort of public relations, we would actually need to discount the majority of press out there. Each source needs to be weighed individually and I don’t see how the ones cited above are advertorials (paid for by the company) or simple reprints of press releases. They contain independent information and come from reliable sources. They are also in-depth which in my opinion, satisfy what is needed to establish WP:GNG. But again, that’s just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point that CNMall41 is making. The fact is that Press Releases do spark interest in a subject or topic. Then journalists pick up on it. If the journalist in a reliable source has used as their starting point of interest a Press Release, that's not bad journalism. That's just the starting point. I seriously doubt any of the above references like the Wall Street Journal are just "reprinting" a press release. They probably saw a buzz of interest and chose to write about it. Are we really going to deconstruct every article to determine just how much PR is involved? Do we need to phone up every journalist and have them give us citations? Is this really the direction we want to go with articles just so that we can discredit enough sources in a an AfD to get the result we desire? Determining somehow (through magic?) that an article is PR just because we feel like it is, isn't Wiki policy, nor good practice in an AfD. I'll be commenting later on the article, because there are other sources out there to add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I agree we have to excercise our judgement here. I have read those articles and I side with the camp that they read too much like rewritten press releases - they seem to promotional, and the coverage doesn't seem much better than that for any other minor start up (they exist, yay!... Google connection, cool!). Sorry, for me that's not enough to make them warrant a page in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, please don't be flip. I said above that I would be commenting later because I found more references on HighBeam, etc. I've added them to the article. The point of finding and discussing more sources is to establish GNG, not to show that I know how to use Google. I appreciate you assuming good faith. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I am sorry we have a misunderstanding; I always assume AGF and I didn't meant to put any words into your mouth. When I wrote the 'cool' sentence, I didn't mean to imply it was your attitude, but that it was the attitude of the sources discussed (that's how I read them). I am sure you know how to use google, and implying otherwise was not my intention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it very much. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references provided are all, without exception, WP:PRIMARY sources and rely on the company or company officers for information and data, often repeated verbatim. None of the references are objective or can be rightly regarded as being unrelated from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail WP:CORPDEPTH and IMO doesn't pass WP:NOTPROMOTION (what Wikipedia is not). The source don't meet the standard for notability of being Reliable and Independent and contain significant coverage. Some seem to meet 2 of the requirements but I don't see any that appear to meet all 3 necessary to establish notability.

The purpose of "Public Relations" is to create a favorable impression of a company or individual. Press releases are a vehicle to do this and certainly do not convey a NPOV. Unfortunately in the rush to provide instant information, press releases from the organizations are often used by publications with minimal change. There is no requirement that a publication needs to disclose the information comes from a press release. The same information that is contained in an advertisement may be found in a press release. The main difference is one is paid for the other is not. Just because a source is not paid for doesn't necessarily make it more credible.

Press Releases, by definition, are primary sources and generally not suitable for establishing notability as they are not independent and in many cases may not be reliable. Many of our subject specific notability criteria exclude press releases and our WP:VERIFY policy considers press releases as self published, hence, primary sources. CBS527^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have considered the references, but even the best ones (thenational, etc.) read like rewritten press-releases. We need to toughen up our guidelines on WP:CORPSPAM. Getting 1-2 articles about business-as-usual-look-at-us-we-are cool should not steer us into WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES territory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only does this entity clearly meet GNG, but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. The standard is "substantial coverage in third party sources independent of the subject." There are major outlets covering this company. Per the concerns of Piotrus, if the wording looks like some of it was cribbed from company materials, that is, my friends, the state of the press today -- we could say much the same about the coverage of most modern politicians (once a meme gets started, everyone repeats it). For that matter, run earwig on older WP articles and they will flag as copyvio because later press articles mirror WP with close paraphrasing. Not only can substantial coverage consist of lazy writing, we also have to remember that some publications in Third World nations where English is not a first language may use less sophisticated writing and style. Montanabw^(talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above by Northamerica1000 and ones that I added to the article are in-depth, occur over time and are about the subject of the article. That's the standard for GNG.

Editors who are stating that these references are blatantly promotional and rewrites of press-releases are making some assertions that they need to defend:

That they know that these are rewrites of Press releases. How do they know that? Do they have copies of the PR to compare?
The articles they are trying to discredit as advertising or press-releases are, in fact, written as advertising. You can't just say that it "feels" like advertising. You have to show me that it's advertising. Otherwise I'm not convinced.

Article clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl - I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider these sources that you added contain "in-depth" coverage of the subject.

The sources you added

1. "Omani Entrepreneur Seeks to Replicate Dubai Success with Shopping Website in Sultanate". Times of Oman. 29 November 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help), (original article can be found "Here".) - just a one sentence mention
2. Krishnamurthy, Krithika (5 January 2015). "Nasscom to Get More Vertical Legs for Its Startups This Year". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via The Times Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) (original article can be found "Here".) - just a one sentence mention and does not verify the statement you added. It was actually 10,000 Startups that received over 9,000 applications and 150 startups not AstroLabs.
3. "Gitex Technology Week to Host Global Start-Up Meet". Khaleej Times. 7 January 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2017 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) (original article can be found "Here".) - a 3 sentence mention. CBS527^Talk 02:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment -- I still do not see how this topic is encyclopedically relevant. To start with, it's associated with a nn Google For Entrepreneurs which we don't really know anything about. Even with the new sources the content is:

AstroLabs was founded in 2012 by Louis Lebbos & Muhammed Mekki, the founders of [nn] Namshi.com.[6][7] In 2016, AstroLabs hosted the the Women in STEM (WiSTEM) Hackathon.[2] As of 2015, AstroLabs has received over 9,000 applications for startup businesses.[9] Etc.

All of the article's copy can be just as successfully housed on the company's web site. Thus, the existence of this article does not serve the readers, but instead (by necessity) is promotion for the company, which Wikiepedia does not do. In this case, WP:NOT overrides any marginal newsworthiness the company might have (because it's effective at PR). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG, per Montanabw and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. It is encyclopedically relevant because per Forbes "Dubai is investing in billions to make the emirate an innovation hub for global technology businesses and entrepreneurs". Coverage then, of organizations like AstroLabs explain how that is happening and why. [1], [2] To make our coverage of such initiatives encyclopedic, by definition articles must be comprehensive. To be comprehensive then, they must include relevant (not minute nor promotional) detail, covered in RS over time. For all the reasons stated above by @Northamerica1000, Montanabw, and Megalibrarygirl: SusunW (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ", but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. " is a classic example of the unacceptable reason for keeping an article: " It's important to society". Keeping an article for that purpose is a direct violation of WP:ADVOCACY. This applies no matter how generally accepted the cause. In fact, it's an argument that shows up here only when the cause is in fact generally accepted, especially when it's a cause of particular strong and merited concern to WPedians. (Nobody sensible would use the argument for a cause that most people here would reject). The question is not whether it is trying to do something excellent and much-needed, but whether its work in doing this is notable. Once it is, there will be sources uncontaminated with PR efforts. Using sources so contaminated is almost as bad as ourselves using WP to promote our own causes--and an argument like that comes to doing exactly that. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think first you have to adequately show that the references are "contaminated" with PR before you can dismiss them. So far, editors !voting delete are relying on how an article "feels" or "seems." That is not how we decide we should delete. The subject of the article passes GNG... unless you decide that the sources feel or seem like PR. That's unacceptable until you can adequately prove that the articles in reliable sources are indeed only advertising. Other factors brought up as "it adds to society" are indeed tangential to the question of GNG. The fact is that the article passes GNG... unless we are changing the rules for this article and allowing feelings to trump facts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources from User:Northamerica1000. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the sources offered by Northamerica are all that great. For example, one headline proclaims: "For Entrepreneurs, By Entrepreneurs: AstroLabs Sets Out To Vitalize MENA Tech Startup Ecosystem" -- this is clearly aspirational and such "vitalizing" has yet to occur. This coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; there's no transformational analysis or indications why this subject is significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Sadly, it seems some editors are mesmerized by the cool factors (Google-connected lab in Middle East supports women!) and ignore the fact that the sources we have read like slightly rewritten press releases :( If we had an independent source, analyzing the impact of this company on women's lives and careers in the region, not based on company's marketing materials, I'd be very happy to vote keep. As it is, I am afraid I see this entry as too promotional and based on too unreliable (marketing) sources to be encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to jump in here, too. You need to prove that these articles are promotional, beyond how you feel about it. K.e.coffman brings up a good example, calling an article "clearly aspirational." Does that make it advertising because it has a positive tone? We can't automatically assign positive-toned articles to unequivocally equal advertising. Many articles about places and people are positive without being advertising. Piotrus brings up marketing materials. How do you know, Piotrus, that the articles are based on the marketing materials solely? Can you demonstrate this? If those saying the references are too promotional can prove that all the above references are advertising beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll reconsider my !vote. But it has to be based on facts, not feelings. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have already given clear reasons why many of the references display the signs of a press release. Press releases do not have to be available online.

The only thing I can add is -

if a large part of "the source" contains direct quotes from a company official or someone associated with the company with no evidence that the writer has communicated with that person, (ie: conversation, email, etc.) then it's very likely it came from a press release and not independent from the topic regardless where it is published.
Is "the source" about an announcement of something? - this type of information almost universally is disseminated through a press release. The source may be useful for verifying material in the article, but is not useful for establishing notability.

Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exists, not on content, not on inherent notability or whether "like it/don't like".

The guideline, WP:GNG is not a free pass for inclusion. Even if an article appears to meet this minimum standard, the article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia per WP:GNG. When a guideline and policy conflict, the policy takes precedence. A number of the editors, myself included, feel this article violates our core policy WP:What Wikipedia is not for the reasons stated. It's fine if others disagree after all that's why we are having this discussion. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm confident the closer of this AFD will give appropriate weight to each of the comments. CBS527^Talk 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cbs527, yes, plenty of editors have claimed they somehow know that the reliable sources above are "clearly" PR. I disagree that the articles are PR and have invited them to definitively show that their claims are valid. GNG is a standard for inclusion, period--no one is saying the article should get a free pass. The sources used in the article (most of which are in-depth), show that Astrolabs has been covered over time. We don't get to change the criteria for GNG just because we feel like it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've included commentary of each source and why it fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability by directly referencing the relevant policy/guidelines below. You say that some editors have claimed they "somehow know" that the "reliable sources above are clearly PR". My position is easy to understand. A source must be "intellectually independent" in order to establish notability. That means that the journalist or publication has fact checked the data and stands over their work (or has voiced a personal opinion based on some other work) and doesn't blindly accept positively spun messaging from an organization. When a journalist uses extensive quotations and/or attributes data to other people or surveys, the only integrity that the article has is that the included quotations are accurate and that the people/organizations/surveys quoted said what was quoted. They don't stand over the content of the quotation, just the fact that the quotation was provided. For me, that's the Big Red Flag. Each of the sources provided to date follow this (lazy non-journalistic) pattern. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it's nice to want an article to meet inclusion criteria, it's pretty clear that the sourcing for this particular subject is clearly based on public relations. DGG's, Swister's, and particularly CBS527's are spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already !voted Delete above but I notice that some Keep !voters are simply saying "meets GNG" or "as per references posted by X" with no further explanations or rebuttals to other discussions. I've examined each and every source and I'm using a variety of policy and notability guidelines to assess those sources (but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND).

Bloomberg articles can sometimes be thinly disguised "advertorials" - that is, an article that poses as an informative independent article but in fact relies completely on the company providing the information. Bloomberg articles that follow the formula of "describe problem -> how the idea/company was born -> photos of founder -> quotes from company officers/founders/CEO -> funding/customer wins/awards" are easy to spot and I consider them to be advertorials. This is one of those articles. There are no criticisms and nothing negative is written about the company or their "opportunity" and there is a lot of hopeful forward-looking aspirational statements. It is not "intellectually independent". This article fails to establish notability because it uses "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:ORGIND because the content is "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization".
The Gitex Technology Week reference provided is by subscription only. Here's one that isn't. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement for GITEX that mentioned Astrolabs in passing (the co-founder will be a judge for one of the competitions) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization".
The National article is another advertorial and if you have read the Bloomberg article previously, this article is eerily similar - even uses the same quotes from various people. For the same reasons, this article fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent.
The WSJ source fails because it is a blog and is therefore not considered a reliable source.
The Entrepeneur article is another advertorial and follows the same formula including "problem -> idea -> photo -> quotes -> solution". It relies completely on company quotations and cannot be considered "intellectually independent". It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
The Wamda article is also an advertorial. Follows the same formula. Relies on quotations from company officers and data provided by the company. It even profiles two of the startups starting there but they *gush* about Astrolabs with comments like "Enthusiastic to become a member of AstroLabs Dubai", "We were impressed by the organized speed of growth ... We are also convinced that AstroLabs Dubai is the suitable platform for such growth", "We are impressed by the division of work-stations. In other words, AstroLabs is greatly aware of the needs of startups". The article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
The Video at DMCC is missing and returns Page Not Found
The Google page cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent since Google is one of AstroLab's partners.
The Times of Oman article (also available without requiring a subscription here) is a profile on a founder of shoponclick.me and AstroLabs is mentioned in passing. Since the article is 1) An advertorial 2) About a different topic and 3) Only mentioned AstroLabs in passing, this article cannot be used to establish notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Times of India article is a Press Release about a different topic (Nasscom) and mentioned AstroLabs in passing. Notwithstanding that Press releases cannot be used to establish notability, there is no depth of coverage and therefore the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

An article requires "multiple" sources to meet the criteria for notability and this topic does not even have a single source that clearly and unequivocally meets the criteria. If this topic was truly notable we would be able to find a reference that was intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have removed the two sentence in the article that were referenced by the Times of India article as well as this source.("Here".) The statements were counter-factual to what was contained in the source. CBS527^Talk 00:54, 10 May 2017 (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.