Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonemetra

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. "Keep" opinions discounted for what I hope are obvious reasons. Sandstein 09:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemetra[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. The only references I find are Facebook, PlayStore, some blogs and their web site. Jbh ^Talk 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be useful.Peter39c (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.122.114 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015‎ (UTC)— Peter39c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But where is the better coverage as my searches instantly found none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not an argument. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better here. Pinging tagger Dodi 8238. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find the coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article that might useful if completed with more references. Jeykey21 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.123.130 (talk) — Jeykey21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - There is no such account as Jeykey21 registered at this time. Jbh ^Talk 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not an argument. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to help expand this article and find sources notables. Peter39c (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (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.