Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Egocentrismo Crítico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
El Egocentrismo Crítico[edit]
- El Egocentrismo Crítico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Dot-com that is looking forward to getting a domain name as soon as possible, so is on Wordpress only. No independent sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 05:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I tagged it as a speedy since it is a non-notable website/blog and I was unable to find any sourcing that disproved that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I probably could have tagged it with a G11 as well- the tone is fairly promotional in nature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - zero notability and the "article" reads like an advert. Stalwart111 06:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (It is a website/blog from Maracaibo, Venezuela. And like other blogs and websites from other parts of the world published right here on the Wikipedia in English, it has the deserved right to stay in the Encyclopedia.) --Andreserm (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreserm (talk • contribs)
- That other articles exist is not a very good reason for keeping this one. To be included, the subject needs to be notable which usually means it needs to meet the general notability guidelines. Do you have examples of "significant coverage" of the site in reliable sources? Stalwart111 09:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam and being purely non-notable. Andreserm's argument carries no weight either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:54, 16 May 2013 (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.