Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoni Assia (3rd nomination)

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. Sandstein 16:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Assia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sourcing is to PR, trivial mentions and unreliable, even deprecated sources. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was deleted 18 months ago based on lack of substantial subject-specific sources. The sources that have been added in the current iteration are these: minimal passing mention in a decent article; minimal passing mention in a reworked press release about the company; minimal passing mention in a breathless Twitter gossip piece. There's no case here for an article, and it should not have been recreated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae±, the first AfD provides some interesting context; keep votes came from User:Mollybloomin (blocked, sockuppet) User:Yinonk (blocked, UPE) and User:Icewhiz (banned by the WMF). Someone is trying to promote the subject. Vexations (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context it's likely - there's a reason we have WP:GS/Crypto: it's all about advertising. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae: given this has been recreated with minimal improvement and the involvement of multiple socks in the first AfD, would you be amenable to add salting to your !vote? Or would this case not be appropriate for that? --Kbabej (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe salting requires more justification than one recreation. Plus it's not unreasonable to assume that the guy may yet become notable / sufficiently covered at some point. I'd say no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (possibly) salt. PR and trivial mentions, as nominator stated. Mere mentions do not add to notability. Given the multiple socks/blocked users on first AfD and the fact the article was recreated with minimal improvement, salting may be in order. --Kbabej (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything to substantiate notability in the way of sigcov in RS. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. There was no reason for this article to be recreated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Kbabej. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per non, however eToro is notable. --Devokewater @ 23:25, 2 August 2020 (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.