Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASTERIG

: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. The nomination is a bit confusing, which may possibly explain why there was no discussion. It's not clear what the nominator wants to happen. In any case, after three weeks, there's effectively no discussion, so closing this. If somebody wants to bring it back to AfD, no prejudice against renomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

=[[:ASTERIG]]=

:{{la|ASTERIG}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ASTERIG Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|ASTERIG}})

Reason

I have moved the article ASTERIG back to draft space as Draft:ASTERIG. At present it does not appear to satisfy general notability guidelines because it does not include references to independent reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear user:Robert McClenon

on my user page, you wrote you doubt the reliability for the used sources.

Just to name 2 of them

Assessment Tool to Measure and Evaluate the Risk Potential of Gambling Products – ASTERIG. In: The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, Vol. 7, 2013, No 1.

Assessment Tool to Measure and Evaluate the Risk Potential of Gambling Products, ASTERIG: A Global Validation. In: Gaming Law Review and Economics. Volume 17, 2013, Issue 9, pp. 635–642.

From my pov, both look very much reliable.

I consider myself a well experienced Wikipedian, who doesn't need the oversight of an AFC process. When I created the article yesterday, this time I choose to use the AFC. You can even see in the article's history, I accidentally deleted the AFC tag, but reinstated it. If we wanna have a due diligence on the article, I will put this article back into namespace and then apply for an AFD. Then we will get a proper peer review to uphold the quality of Wikipedia.

Regards,

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess it would be helpful, if someone from the WikiProject Gambling will have a look into this issue:

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear user:2005,

I recogniced your recent change to the ASTERIK article. As far as I can see, a lot of your edit's within Wikipedia are to gambling related topics. I would be pleased for your pov in this deletion discussion.

Regards,

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of this AFD. However, one participant has suggested that the experts in WikiProject:Gamblimg might be able to help; but has made a notification which they are unlikely to see. I have therefore posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling#ASTERIG, inviting contributions. Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

: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.