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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLabs[edit]

AstroLabs (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)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable co-working space. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP related to launch publicity, and routine notices. First AfD closed as "No consensus"; sources in the article or presented at the AfD are not compelling. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this really worth hashing over again less than a year after the last exercise? What has changed in the last 10 months that would change the outcome here? ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion closed as "no consensus", so a new nomination is entirely appropriate. The company is still non notable (IMO), hence the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unless there's a new development, we're unlikely to reach a consensus this time either. These borderline cases with lengthy discussion and no clear conclusion consume a lot of the community's time and good-will. What is the potential benefit of doing this again? ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed is that no new indications of notability have been uncovered since the last AfD. "No consensus" closures are not binding, so it's perfectly reasonable to bring the topic to AfD again. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the potential benefit of doing this again? ~Kvng (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one potential benefit is that doing it a second time means we won't need to do it a third :( ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has RS coverage. Notable enough. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 15:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per evidence of notability in citations in article and identified by Northamerica1000. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources are good and show notability. From the sources - the hub is the most in demand real estate for tech companies in Dubai, and the first tech hub partnership with Google in Dubai. Passes WP:GNG. There are other more recent reliable sources that aren't as notable but nonetheless show breadth and depth of coverage. [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]].

• Keep – Meets the GNG per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 20 March 2018 (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.