Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glocals.com


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Glocals.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and the gratuitously-uncheckable references are a red flag - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:GNG, sources do not have to be available online or written in English, and per WP:NEXIST, when establishing notability we should take into account all available sourcing, not just the article's current sourcing. Here are some RS I found: Tribune de Geneve, Le Temps, Wall Street Journal. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed they don't have to exist online; I'm sceptical they exist. Offline-only references for a website? - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took to mean that they weren't easily accessible online. In this article's case it looks like that's not because the sources weren't available online, it was because whoever did the referencing on the article didn't include URLs for newspaper articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. The sources above are passing mentions (WSJ, Tribune) and an interview (Le Temps). These articles do not address the subject directly and in detail, and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe it's too soon for an article, which currently only serves to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Websites are some of the easiest entities for which sources can be found. This one falls far short of the requirement. Note that sources need to be reliable, secondary and indepenent of the subject as well as offer a certain depth of coverage. Among the sources I found
 * tdg.ch -, trivial coverage which is essentially a quote by founder
 * letemps.ch, founder's interview
 * WSJ expat commentary Brief coverage and source is a WSJ blog which are not subject to the same editorial standards as the regular columns. (I'm sorry but after my last experience with a paid editor who wrote columns about people and then created Wikipedia article using these as "sources", I see newsblogs as WP:SPIP).
 * GenevaLunch Site is owned and edited by a single person making it a WP:SPS, non-RS.
 * Looking at the sources, this is a clear delete at this time. This is essentially a local online expat forum and these exist in almost all places. I don't see any claim of significance here either so I don't see why this needs to be kept. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I examined what the sources said above, and they are simply advertising what there is to say about the group including its background and information; that is simply PR attempts and there's been historical established consensus here at AfD that simply having that, but still no actual significant substance is not enough for an article. SwisterTwister   talk  20:03, 20 September 2016 (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.