Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bas Godska


 * 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. SPA !votes, and ironically the nominator's rationale, have been discounted. However, experienced editors have provided sound deletion rationales. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bas Godska

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think that this article isn't written in neutral point of view, it's promotional and needs in full-rewriting to make it neutral. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view this article is well-written and well-sourced. It includes lots of links leading to other wikipedia articles as well as to external reputable sources. It's has a clear structure and looks typical for the articles containing biographies of living people. It doesnt seem to look promotional, it just clearly corresponds to the achievements of the person. Margarita
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I reckon that this article is very interesting, having heard Bas Godska at several conferences , I think that the information provided is useful and impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabbob (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont find anything unreasonably emotional in this article. I think that corresponds to all the rules and should be left unchanged. Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreamore (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 
 * Very interesting, users with only one edit vote "keep". Very good. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references. I read it and RW notability looks unlikely.   I also take note that of the three supports for keeping, one is the creator, and the others are 2 are single-edit accounts. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this text, perhaps a bit of shortening lengthy paragraphs. Sufficient references to interviews and newspaper articles. Godska is sufficiently visible in the Russian and European e-commerce sector and integrated in Crunchbase (e-commerce who is who). I may have not yet any WP edits to my name, but would appreciate my opinion to be considered if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.241.190 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability. The "External links" section is just a list of websites, not links to articles; the publications in the "Articles" section are of dubious reliability; and the "Interviews" are all on YouTube.  I'm not convinced that any of that qualifies as a reliable source and I can't see any significant news coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnotable - must provide proper references, not just a do-it-yourself list of external links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep unclear why there's resistance against a normal publication in leading Easter European news sources, are these somewhat biased comments of previous commentators about dubious reliability based on the assumption that anything written outside in the US or UK is dubious? I see sufficient reference articles are now in please to reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrobator (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly reputable and notble information sources as TechCrunch Crunchbase (moderated and cooptative publishing by journalists), Cnet, various notable conference performances, interviews by independent bloggers Popova and investor; since when is Youtube not accepted as source? trkaya 188.123.241.190 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again flashmob from one-edit accounts. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for your opinions and advice, it was helpful for the improvement of the article. But now I would like to object to its deletition. I can admit that at the beginning it didnt look perfect, but now I have improved it according to all the policies of Wikipedia: the sources are reputable as well as the articles and videos (including videos from panel discussions from the well-known marketing events, not only youtube sources). The article looks neat and well-done, the language and style responds to all the requirements of the website, so I can see no longer the reasons of deleting a full article that follows all the rules. Margarita
 * Delete Yet another heavily self-promoting Internet marketer; no evidence of notability and nothing I would particularly call a reliable source. Studerby (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. My how the global recession has brought out so many resumes on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP notability, nor do the references indicate that he ever will. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.