Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabicombe

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jabicombe[edit]

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

Tempting to list it for CSD as purely promotional. Since CSD is supposed to be only for undebatable situations, however, I'm going to list it at AFD instead. As well as being highly non-neutral, all claims are unsubstantiated, and I have been unable to find any real significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search shows mostly youTube videos, no news coverage. Search for real name shows no results at all. Without references, there is no credible assertion of notability. Seaphoto^Talk 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it if you want, but it would be better to leave it to allow others to contribute and fill in some of the blanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaalvar (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no coverage in news sources, and lots of videos posted on various sites, I would agree with the nominator, and specially due to its tone, that the article is promotional. Currently unsalvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:27, 29 March 2011 (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.