Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakin9

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. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hakin9[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. Non-notable Internet publication. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. I have submmited a A7 CSD for Unremarkable Websites/Web content. I agree that it fails on notability. I would also argue that the page is mainly focused on several 'controversies' caused by the blog, and is not shown in a very neutral way. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:54, 8 March 2017 (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.