Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assaf Swissa

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Swissa

edit

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

Assaf Swissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for an apparently non-notable businessperson. This article is built almost entirely on WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (or in some cases non-mentions) in coverage of his client/business partner Julian Edelman ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Other sources are coverage of Swissa's business that doesn't mention him ([12], [13], [14], [15]); WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([16], [17]); and student media from Swissa's alma mater and thus not independent ([18], [19]). My WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same. I count only one article from the Boston Globe that gets close to independent WP:SIGCOV of Swissa, and we'd need to see more. I see no evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR or any other applicable guidelines either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, or at least move to draft. I see coverage of Swissa in some other notable publications and Superdigital is quite well known. --FeldBum (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the WP:THREE best sources you think constitute independent WP:SIGCOV? Notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Superdigital. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they would be:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, speedy keep in light of marginally suitable sources. (The Boston Magazine piece is an as-told-to so wouldn't count.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assaf_Swissa&oldid=1295150713"