Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICanHazPDF


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

ICanHazPDF

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

A hashtag used 4 times in 2015 with two fluff pieces written about it fails GNG. Remsense 诉  15:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Academic journals.  Remsense  诉  15:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure where "4 times in 2015" is coming from, as it appears to continue to be used as recently as last week, and it receives in-depth coverage in academic literature, eg . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The BBC and Atlanic articles are pretty in-depth, not puff pieces, and discuss the subject as being part of wider issues around copyright and open access, I'd consider that to be SIGCOV. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk! ) 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Doing a quick search, the hashtag is completely notable; many in-depth references exist beyond the cited ones. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2024 (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.