Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fondomat

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 keep. Czech sources are just as valid as English sources in proving notability (even though for obvious reasons we prefer English sources here if we have the choice). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fondomat

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

No evidence it meets WP:WEB. Only reliable source I found was this, which is an interview, nothing else with "multiple, reliable independent coverage" needed to meet WP:GNG, remaining sources are mostly press releases CNN source is a one word mention (I read Spanish). Alexa rank is in the high 3 millions. Delete Secret ^account 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are your Czech skills? There are articles in Czech verifying this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. All of the sources currently in the article are either first party or user submitted news. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is a Czech national television documentary 'first party' or 'user submitted news' - all other quote materials are third-party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article by Česká televize (Czech national television) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another new article by Česká televize (Czech national television) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: Czech Television (1), Czech Television (2) and Czech Television (3). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's just a Czech clone of Kickstarter etc. but it does have enough sources to properly verify the basic facts. In addition to the TV spots, the Prague Post is a pretty reputable English language paper. Steven Walling • talk 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Crowd funding. While Fondomat exists, and may be worth a mention in the Crowd funding article, I am not convinced of its notability outside of the Czech Republic for a stand alone article on the English language Wikipedia. This is clearly a topic for the Czech Wikipedia, but other than saying in an article on Crowd funding that an example exists in Czech Republic and when it was founded, I don't see a dedicated article adding anything encyclopedic beyond what exists in Crowd funding. WP:CORPDEPTH applies here, and I'd like to see some international coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 20 February 2012 (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.