- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wikipedia Girls ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was going to tag it with CSD, but figured this would be better. I don't think this deserves an article at all. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipe-tan(which is more notable) has almost to no coverage outside of usergenerated sources. Same should apply to this article as well.
- Roostery123 ( talk) 03:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's strangly difficult to find anything about them, but a lot of archived posts would seem to confirm it's existence. Semantism ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- edit i found a lot of things but the sites were blocked by Wikipedia's filter so i can't put the link to all of the sites my research is based on.
Semantism (
talk)
01:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it's a concept that exists does not mean that it should be kept as a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article.
Asparagusus
(interaction)
01:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you have sources, try breaking up the URLs so that at least we can put the URLs back together and see what they are. Of course, if the sites are already blocked, it's unlikely that they will count as reliable independent sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it's a concept that exists does not mean that it should be kept as a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article.
Asparagusus
(interaction)
01:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be an alternative version of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan designed to insult Wikipedians, and it's barely sourced at all. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Very minor internet meme lacking any proper coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wikipedia Girls ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was going to tag it with CSD, but figured this would be better. I don't think this deserves an article at all. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipe-tan(which is more notable) has almost to no coverage outside of usergenerated sources. Same should apply to this article as well.
- Roostery123 ( talk) 03:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's strangly difficult to find anything about them, but a lot of archived posts would seem to confirm it's existence. Semantism ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- edit i found a lot of things but the sites were blocked by Wikipedia's filter so i can't put the link to all of the sites my research is based on.
Semantism (
talk)
01:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it's a concept that exists does not mean that it should be kept as a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article.
Asparagusus
(interaction)
01:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you have sources, try breaking up the URLs so that at least we can put the URLs back together and see what they are. Of course, if the sites are already blocked, it's unlikely that they will count as reliable independent sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it's a concept that exists does not mean that it should be kept as a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article.
Asparagusus
(interaction)
01:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be an alternative version of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan designed to insult Wikipedians, and it's barely sourced at all. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Very minor internet meme lacking any proper coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (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.