Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locus Suspectus


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Locus Suspectus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreliable sources and not found on Google except for on Facebook - the website is just some blog with the F word written everywhere. Whenaxis (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Target website is a keyword-stuffing linkspam site. I'd raise this to the level of CSD A11, but the spam isn't immediately obvious from the context of the article. All I can say is the title is accurate, suspect location indeed... -- RoninBK T C 04:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As said above, the target appears to be a linkspam site, without any indication of notability whatsoever. -- Dreambother (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: if this article is removed, the redirect Locus suspectus should also be removed. -- Dreambother (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete According to this the magazine folded in 2008. Obviously someone picked up the lapsed URL and are creatively spamming us. The spam noticeboard should be notified--I'd bet this is not the only article with this linkspam redirect. As for the original magazine itself, it had a short lifespan with apparently no third-party coverage. I think this could be speedied.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The website is currently a spam website, but that likely just means a spammer picked up an expired domain - nothing creative there; the article/link were in good faith at the time. That said, I agree that if the magazine folded in 4 years then that's a good sign that it's not notable.  Quarl (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2010 (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.