Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groups of Interest (SCP Foundation)

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. Deleted per A7 and salted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of Interest (SCP Foundation)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a fictional organisation of dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Also, with same rationale, nominating[reply]

SCP Foundation (Organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this

The Wanderer's Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was created after the information was removed from the SCP Foundation page.--Auric talk 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this site has already been up for deletion in 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SCP Foundation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm not sure if everything on here can be speedied as a recreation of content at the prior AfD, but the lack of notability is fairly clear. I did find an article by the Daily Dot and some by io9, there really isn't enough out there to show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them all as a speedy for nn webcontent. The problem here is that the website failed an AfD in 2012 and none of the new content shows how it passes notability guidelines. On top of that, all of this is content pertaining to the website- which failed notability guidelines. Hopefully we can just speedy this and get it out of the way without having to go through a week long AfD process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend salting these, since re-creation is so likely. I've salted the one I personally speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 30 January 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.