Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Singles

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 February 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Singles

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

Simply does not meet WP: Notability. Unironically, President Trump's genitals have gotten more notability than this website. If anything it should be merged into Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, which itself does not meet WP:Notability either. KingForPA (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources. Entry includes lots of cites to such coverage. This is an I don't like it nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FloridaArmy. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bernie Singles website is defunct (and has been for most of this articles existence). If this were a notable websites, surely there would be sources noting and lamenting the loss. All of the information in the article is incredibly stale, and it can't be updated because after a brief flurry of media coverage the site retreated into permanent obscurity. Plantdrew (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NWEB and WP:NOTNEWS. A brief period of coverage does not translate into encyclopedic notability in this case, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of sources adequately covering this website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2018 (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.