Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olagist

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. And salt. All the keep !votes appear to be SPAs and furthermore, they are not giving evidence that the topic is notable. Please read WP:GNG and WP:WHYN as to what is actually expected from the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Olagist

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-created for the third time. Speedy deletion templates removed repeatedly. This is a non-notable website. I can find no references discussing the topic. Additionally. the article is written as purely promotional, advertising its services, i.e. "sure source for the latest news and all Genre of music and Musical Videos" (sic). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. I'd personally have gone down the route of WP:G11 – the article does sound quite promotional. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Articles on Wikipedia are subjected to edits as there maybe need to Edit due to change in the previous fact hence any registered member is free to edit any article provided it is not out of context . same goes for the Proposed article . if any wikipedian feels the article needs more citation to back its claim anybody is free to do so by editing , its a stub which means its open for contribution and expansion. for this reason i strongly Support that the article should not be deleted.

Foreman22 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Foreman22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and Salt Non-notable and promotional, where this is the third time this article has been re-created it and multiple i.p. and new unconfirmed editors removing deletion templates the article should also be salted. VViking_TalkEdits 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it should not be Deleted though am still new here but have heard the name in question before , in my own candid view i will suggest the article be allowed and watched while the Creator be given a time frame to gather more material to backup the article claims.Anijames (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Anijames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please do not remove other editors comments when you create your own comments as you did with VViking above, that is considered rude and disruptive. VViking_TalkEdits 15:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please lets be Civil in Handling issues and no sentiments please No body should take sides with anybody here we are all entitled to our own different opinion.

With All Sense of Responsibility i will humbly ask that this article should not be deleted rather it should be given room to be improved upon16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Mikebilz (talk)

Please Don't Delete it am a Total Novice here was searching some stuff on google when i stumbled on this page with a Red Sign indicating it is being considered for deletion. i don't know how you guys operate here if this page has an admin or moderator i will like to pass this message direct to the Moderator that it should not be deleted. i won't be happy if i cant find this page again.217.151.98.13 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — 217.151.98.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete and salt; vandals removed adequately placed CSD tag for a recreated crap article. Blatantly non-notable blog. Delete and warn disruptive editors involved in repeatedly removing deletion tags. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:41, 10 November 2016 (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.