Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandalism


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fandalism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP for not receiving significant coverage. Only 3 sources could reasonably be considered to provide 'significant coverage' of the website. Two other TechCrunch articles have it as a topic, but not at a depth to be considered significant. Anything else online is merely a passing mention of its existence. (Amusingly, one mention was from a news article about four murders.) SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the involvement of the likes of Van Halen, this company does indeed fail WP:NCORP. TH1980 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.