Alfonso Cobo: As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI.  Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion.  The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions.  The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media.  There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets.  Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature.  ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Business ,  and Sexuality and gender .  ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per norm.  Non-notable businessman, I don't see how they meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG .  The author has also failed to disclose if they are a UPE, despite several attempts he/she has ignored the tags.  I would recommed WP:SALT , as the author seems adamant on getting the page up without adhering to our policies.  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Cobo is actually notable, and his app/company Unfold is now an integral part of Squarespace , a notable company.  WP:SALT is also too drastic.  I don't see how this is COI.  I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short.  If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online.  I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in.  Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too.  I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy.  Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them.   I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him.  I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated.  This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in.  There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out.  I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it.  In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Sendero99 ( talk ) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Sendero99 ( talk • contribs )  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD .  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Fast Company link used is green per sourcetool.  Rest arent, but I can't open it behind the paywall.  I find this [21] and this [22] .  Enough to give context, but minimal coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks like there are conflated issues here  1) is the subject notable?  2) is the editor an UPE?  Let's separate the two.  As far as the subject itself, there's more enough for me that he satisfies WP:GNG .  As for the second - I don't know.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.  Is there anything we can do other than take his word for it?  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Independent coverage by Forbes and CNBC more than establishes notability.  The issue of COI/UPE should be handled by a topic ban imposed on the related parties, while others rewrite the page, not be deletion.  Owen× ☎ 19:51, 26 November 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.

Discussion outcome: keep