Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ferreira

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. I will userfy the article upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ferreira[edit]

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

non notable. This amounts to an advertisement for his various non-notable projects. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! not notable? interviews in huffington post, The State Press, AZ Business Magazine, and Forbes.--27century (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy perhaps as he may be best known for the company which I've also suggested drafting and userfying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySocialCloud. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this person (as a person) in independent, reliable sources. I am sorry, 27century, but interviews are not independent sources and therefore do not contribute to notability. No objection to userfying and resubmission if truly independent sources are provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 15 March 2016 (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.