Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topnuz

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topnuz[edit]

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

Not notable. Promotion article only. Tyros1972 Talk 09:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and considerably promotional. I did decline a speedy G11 though, as it was not so entirely promotional as to meet the qualifications for G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I opened up a sock investigation [[1]] as since we had 8 different users contest it, some anon and others newly registered. I think (though can't prove) that this proves it is advert/promo since they are doing this. Personally I prefer the AfD as speedy's come back and wind up going thru AfD anyway. Let's just salt this one when it's closed. Tyros1972 Talk 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They just added a 9th contest to the speedy even though it's closed. The person must be using a proxy and page cache is old. Talk:Topnuz Tyros1972 Talk 20:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two news articles from Diario Jaen and El Pais (here in English) provide some useful content, but they're both basically just descriptions of the website (a la WP:1E, though obviously not a person). Given it's a very young website, it's not surprising there's nothing else to meet WP:WEB or the WP:GNG. — Frankie (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2013 (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.