Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sbubby


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sbubby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some kind of fad that had long died; I locate coverage in only two reliable sources ( Mashable and Time) thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NWEB quite comprehensively. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – per nomination. I agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. — CentronX (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - I thought this was a good article, but nope! Please delete this. Bryce M (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete could very well qualify for WP:G3 because it's a hoax. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Qualifies for WP:A7; there's no indication of significance or notability, and it doesn't seem like the subject is legitimately noteworthy at all. The only sources cited are Reddit posts. Luke  Talk  03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete wholly a Reddit phenomenon, with no significant external coverage. SD0001 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per nom. not enough RS. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2019 (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.