Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybernatural

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernatural[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable Phenomena, no good coverage in the primary and secondary sources like in the news here and there about the subject. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources the article cites that actually use this term are cybernatural.org and a forum. Fails GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this moment.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2014 (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.