Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuflix

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuflix

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

No indication of WP:GNG. WP:SPA making solely promotional pages. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. ~~Yes, this seems to be a very suspect PR-only account.~~ A Google News search for the company name reveals no reliable sources whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oh I see, it's a WP:Walled garden for Sergio Masís-Obando. The SPA is spamming for him or is him.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Google News queries justify reliability. There are multiple articles online that teach businesses how to make into Google News. Like many things online it's 'hackable'. Second, this is not spam for Sergio Masís-Obando, nor is this him. The article introduces popular academic incubators, and as such this article discusses one of said ventures incubated. Andresramon (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Also, I don't think this is a Walled garden. I fail to understand how the pages fail to link to relevant items outside of the article itself. Andresramon (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Regardless, the two Sergio Masís-Obando-related articles simply aren't notable from what I can see -- but the other two articles you've created today seem to be. I apologize if I had misjudged you -- a new account appearing and instantly creating articles on non-notable businesspeople is a highly suspect and common activity. So long as you go carefully with article creation and measure every one against the standard of WP:ORG before you create it, you'll be fine. happy editing, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, @Shawn in Montreal:--and no worries. Coming from your side of things, it makes sense that I would be a suspect. In regard to the nomination of this article, I'd like to counter that this does meet notability. From wiki: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. If we look carefully at the cited sources, in this case these are the 'reliable sources' that noticed the 'organization or product' we will find that this includes three separate academic institutions (respected and world famous, no less) and additional articles in which Shuflix is squarely the focus of the news pieces (a parameter you suggested in my talk page to look out for). I do think that it may be viable to expand this article in the future and make the article more attractive. Andresramon (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Delete as clear advertising part of an advertising campaign so policy WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others - fails GNG and pure advertising. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not everything that a student does at Harvard or Yale or even Princeton is necessarily notable, despite the claims above of the editor. In fact, this remarkably trivial random event-recommendation service is an excellent example. No valid sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 8 December 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.