- 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- OWJ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced article about a relatively new website. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 13:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. No third-party coverage or sourcing to demonstrate that this passes even the basic WP:GNG criteria, and this is possibly a speedy deletion candidate since it does not appear to even make any assertions of notability. -- DAJF ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of attained notability; as suggested by DAJF this could be a CSD A7 candidate. AllyD ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - No coverage in any independent reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2013 (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.
- 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- OWJ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced article about a relatively new website. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 13:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. No third-party coverage or sourcing to demonstrate that this passes even the basic WP:GNG criteria, and this is possibly a speedy deletion candidate since it does not appear to even make any assertions of notability. -- DAJF ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of attained notability; as suggested by DAJF this could be a CSD A7 candidate. AllyD ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - No coverage in any independent reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2013 (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.