Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payamonster


 * 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 Speedy delete by User:INeverCry under WP:G3, Blatant hoax Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Payamonster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC). It also seems that JackSteins (talkcontribsdeleted contribsnuke contribs[ logs][ edit filter log]block user[ block log]), ArturoRomeroCruz (talkcontribsdeleted contribsnuke contribs[ logs][ edit filter log]block user[ block log])  WikiVerifierEditor (talkcontribsdeleted contribsnuke contribs[ logs][ edit filter log]block user[ block log])  are all singly concerned with removing the AFD template. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly sourced non-notable neologism. - MrX 11:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A bit long for WP:NOTDICTIONARY, but still WP:MADEUPONEDAY. No suitable referencing given or found. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE: There's no valid, solid reason for deletion. Not much sources to link this to. No reader could give any evidence that the contents on this article don't exist. Tell me which part needs to be improved and I will do it. No one has the right to request for an article to be deleted just based on what they think is right or wrong. If any of the codes that I used is wrong, let me know. This article is not fiction, so unless someone provides a proof that questions the authenticity of this article, this article should not be deleted.

JohnDenverWilson (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's the wrong way round. If you can give evidence in reliable independent sources that it is notable, then we'll reconsider. If you can't, we take it that it is either not notable, or is a hoax. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist. You have to prove that it does. Look at it this way - I say I've got a goat that can do algebra. Do you have to prove I don't? Or should I have to prove I do? Peridon (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (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.