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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon badia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. This article uses a non-notable neologism that has been coined by the author to deliver a borderline-spammy original research essay about the latest development of the technology business in the Arab world. It fails WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NEO. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

• Delete per nomination. Whatever else can be said about it, this article has phrases in it like a technology capacity and best practice exchange forum between entrepreneurs in the Arab world and the United States. A law firm is described as leading global, never a good sign; will take a look at the article we apparently have on it. The founder is described as working within the early stage technology venture capital space. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Response from author - The article is used to highlight a first event of its kind that happened in NYC this past month for startups from the Arab world and startups in NYC that in turn has resulted in the coining of the term "Silicon Badia." Check Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley and Silicon Wadi as you clearly don't know what this means. Each of these terms refers to the startup world within the West Coast, NYC, and Israel respectively. The fact that the event "Silicon Badia meets Silicon Alley" brought together the main players in the Arab startup world, and the fact that we and the press have decided to adopt this as the title referring to our region through this historic event means it should stay. Don't deprive us from creating our own history please.
• Addition from author: If you have real suggestions on how to improve the article I am happy to edit it. I see a lot of similarities with the Silicon Alley page but think ours is written better...
  • The problem is that we need reliable external and independent sources reporting about the importance and significance of Silicon badia; who is "the press" in this case? We'd need several nationwide articles with an in-depth coverage of this phenomenon and the name, not just a drive-by mentioning in some local newspiece. The point is that something that is completely new is almost never notable and important enough to have an article on Wikipedia and if you are personally involved in the topic then that is a further caveat. Neutrality is also important for the tone of an article, see the comments by Smerdis of Tlön above. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism; even if this event were notable, the expression "silicon badia" isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from Author: Thank you very much for your feedback some of it is very useful for me. BUT There are a few problems with your argument: 1) All of the sources I have provided are "reliable external and independent sources." If you have an email I can send you the press clippings (actual newspaper vs. online) 2) "Nationwide" is incorrect to use as wikipedia is GLOBAL vs. US-only. 3) My personal involvement has nothing to do with it I am not winning an award vs. trying to create exposure for this. I can have someone else submit this piece so this is irrelevant. I AGREE with you that it is a new concept HERE but locally in the Middle East "Silicon Badia" is commonly used. Anyhow I appreciate the feedback if you and the wikipedia audience thinks it is not relevant then so be it but it won't help us if it is deleted! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.50.104 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response but you might not be aware of the relevant Wikipedia policies, so here's a comment to your answers.

1. This is obviously a press release by the involved parties and therefore it is a primary source and does not establish notability; this is another press release, this too and this also. This is only a brief news statement which would be ruled out by WP:NOTNEWS, this is again a primary newsfeed by Chadbourne, and someone's blog is also not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This article in Arabic, headlined "A special meeting of the leading Jordanian companies in the field of technology in New York" is also only a news item at first glance but I may be wrong because I don't speak Arabic. Business.jo looks very bloggish and not like a reliable and independent site. "Posted by editor" – who is that editor? Are they independent of the subject or just promoting the event? And last but not least this is another brief news piece and hardly something noteworthy.
2. Nationwide coverage is generally a good minimum criterion for notable events but it does not exclude international coverage. You've posted articles from Jordanian websites but they are either not reliable or they aren't noteworthy themselves (see above). Wikipedia is not a news site but a subject needs enduring notability to be covered.
3. Your personal involvement is relevant per a policy called Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and per WP:NEO, even because you invented that term "Silicon Badia".

If that term and the related business sector keeps getting coverage and develops to become an established name then we can perhaps have an article but right now I think it is much too early to have this covered in an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response from author: thank you I will re-submit when there is more coverage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.122.133 (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2011 (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.