Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slimeyard slimes

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. Despite creator's claim, this is promotional (G11) and as Deb remarks, there is no credible claim for otability either (A7). Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slimeyard slimes

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

No verifiable notability, with the only reference being an external link to the online shop; seemingly created as promotion by a possibly closely affiliated user ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete WP:G11 Septrillion (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main editor claims that the article is "not unambiguously promotional". G11 might be problematic because "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no credible claim of notability either. Deb (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and not notable. Deb (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018 (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.