Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Mascot

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 delete‎ per

WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Henry Mascot

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO: CEO of a startup, and in a WP:BEFORE search the best I could find was this interview in a RS (but interviews are a primary source) and an article about his company in TechCrunch, a source for which

WP:TECHCRUNCH says "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability". None of this amounts to SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify): I must admit, I would have probably just moved this back to drafts and declined at AfC, but the OP is right that if a BEFORE finds nothing amounting to notability, then draftifying would only buy time in the hope that more and better sources show up. I'm okay with either deleting or draftifying, but one or the other it must be, as this cannot stay in the main space as it is. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would only create more work for volunteers; the creator would probably move it back to mainspace and we would still have a second nom. My thoughts. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article content is more about his Curacel Systems start-up than about the person, but retitling / reframing as an article about the company wouldn't work as it is
notability. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nominator's rationale. Subject is yet to garner in-depth coverage. Clear case of
WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd redirect to a new article about the company Curacel, which seems to have limited coverage; any mention of this person is always in relation to the company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curacel does not meet
WP:NORG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment article creator has belatedly declared COI [1], following an attempted move of the article to draft. Wikishovel (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, they did acknolwedge a COI but COI, on its own, is not a reason for an article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Wikishovel (talk)

Delete per AllyD's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AllyD summed it up best. Gjs238 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources cited are just mere links and not reliable. Some point to Curacel rather than the subject. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 17:34, 21 October 2023 (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.