Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cazza

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cazza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

contested prod.Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH ,this company was established in 2016 and best is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON paid article created by a Sockfarm Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it was my proposal to delete (PROD). Issues include that the article fundamentally depends on crystal ball speculation as to whether this 3D building technique will even be utilized. Press regurgitating the company's own speculative announcements does not substantiate notability. Note that most of the sources closely follow an orchestrated press campaign by Cazza and UAE. Either January-February 2017 following this 2016-12-27 or other like this – even the title of the latter "Cazza to build the first 3D printed Skyscraper in the world" was repeated with minor variation by several sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question if this is known to have been created by a banned user (via sockpuppet), why can't we use WP:G5 to dispose of it? ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedure is only to G5 if other GF editors haven't made substantial edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More importantly the page creator was blocked per NOTHERE and behaviourally isn't linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaplipa. SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand these answers. Too much wikilingo. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. References are based on company announcements and/or quotations and are not intellectually independent, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as corporate spam; 100% promotional with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2017 (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.