Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimbarr

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbarr[edit]

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

Poorly sourced mess of doubious Wikipedia:Notability by WP:SPA User:Wazaxmi. Prodded by User:Kudpung , deprodded by creator w/out rationale. I can't find a single good source, and I am not even 100% sure this is not a WP:HOAX. Very WP:ORish. Sourced to youtube vidoes and such; frankly this may be some kind of attempt to advertise a youtube channel or... I am not sure. Doesn't exist in Google Books or Scholar; if this is some youth subculture it does not seem very notable. If this is deleted, it would be advisable to nominate the article for deletion on other Wikipedias it exists on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's a hoax, it's certainly a very elaborate one given the YouTube videos, but YouTube videos still don't confer notability. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it's highly dubious that this style exists. Fails WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (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.