Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJOTO

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. czar 09:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJOTO

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

Frankly I classify this as A7 material and if it was removed, I would've PRODed....but chances are that would've been removed also; my own searches have simply found nothing at all and there's still nothing suggesting actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking DGG for his analysis as he has a long history with such non-notable subjects like these. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of the first UK-based startup firms to use Kickstarter is incidental rather than a substantial claim of notability. My searches showed little other than a short lifestyle piece on the Telegraph website ("Ajoto: the last pen you will ever need" 25 March 2014). Neither that nor the given references and links seems sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability for an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If more cannot be found they are not yet notable. The real problem is that this article by a spa who almost certainly had COI, was unlikely to be written by someone's first article, and is therefore a product of paid undeclared paid editing, and we need ways to detect other articles written by the same ring. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 24 July 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.