Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Lines


 * 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. Consensus is now clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Memory Lines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm adding Memory Lines Blog to this nomination, since the article was moved to that title. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as none of this seems enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I am the page contributor and working for Wikipedia to make it a better place of Information Encyclopedia.user:stalinsunnykvj.This article on memory lines blog is made for the people who are in search of this project work.This is a non profit project.Also notability is clearly given in the following newspaper daily Mathrubhumi and Deccan chronicle.These are the local dailies and these help inspire each writer to go beyond their dreams.Everything starts from blank page.Wikipedia must not Contain any Irrelevant or Fake information and I being a contributor wish to keep that on but editors should verify the requirement of articles to be included in wikipedia which helps local people and natives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalinsunnykvj (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2016‎
 * For this to be notable and acceptable, this would need solid in-depth third-party sources overall, not trivial passing mentions and press releases. If need be, we can draft and userfy. SwisterTwister   talk  07:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked at most of the cited sources.  None meet our requirements in WP:RS.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The total lack of third party sources points to no major notability, which violates WP:GNG. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:12, 14 March 2016 (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.