Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's Not Fake

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Not Fake

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

That's Not Fake (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)

The subject does not pass our SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources therefore not passing WP:GNG. Thanks for taking this to AFD as I recently prodded it but now note it had been prodded and deprodded before, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Atlantic306. A failed attempt at a viral ad campaign with no indication of notability. The only reliable source that appears to talk about it is the one WSJ article already cited in the article that just talks about how the campaign fizzled, and alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Interestingly enough, it seems as if this article itself was originally created as part of the viral marketing campaign - it was created by an WP:SPA who repeatedly tried to spread the false information that this was a real show. Rorshacma (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as a WP:NN neologism with flash-in-the-pan use. A great example of the flawed thinking behind WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the viral ad. There's no way to expand the article, it easily fails WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per mom. Does not pass notability. Nika2020 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2020 (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.