Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Polygon
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Courcelles 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonia Polygon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Editor made no other edits not related to making this page. No reliable sources cover it. This is just an advertisement someone made for their product. Dream Focus 15:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The following was left by the article's creator at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Antonia Polygon. I have copied it here verbatim. In response to the comment about references.... honestly, if you have other references with which to update the reference list, now's the time. I have been unable to track down any significant coverage in reliable sources, but perhaps you have had more success. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor made no other edits not related to making this page. -> Correct; editor is not involved in other projects
- No reliable sources cover it. -> not true; see references, but admitted reference list needs updating
- This is just an advertisement someone made for their product. -> not true; it is not the editor's product but a community resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagoasOfPersia (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one thing listed in reference is a reliable source independent of the subject. I did look over all of them, and did check for reliable sources, before I nominated this for deletion. Dream Focus 14:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The references at the bottom of the page are forums or blogs, and I couldn't find anything more reliable online. The little green pig (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - social media, forums and blogs are not considered reliable sources and a lack of reliable sources means this subject fails WP:GNG. Break-outs like "(350+ pages!)" in the article don't help against the suggestion that this is just someone trying to WP:PROMO their pet project. Stalwart111 03:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.