Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dapp Life

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dapp Life

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

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

Non notable crypto publication. Not cited in any reliable sources and no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional advert for the website that fails wp:Promo, the article creators have repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag which still applies as G11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I agree with Biwom's CSD. It's still valid because the article creator isn't supposed to remove it. SITH (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just to make it clear why I have reverted speedy deletion tag second time: Biwom placed a speedy deletion tag as I believe he has a personal issues with my presense on Wikipedia, you can check his talk page and you will see that. Also note to admins (regardless of what the outcome of this discussion will be) Biwom has been flagged multiple times for disruptive editing as the only thing he does on Wikipedia is nominating pages for deletion, which is kind of disruptive negative patern. I'm greatful for the editor who did Prod because he did a correct edit by placing Prod, so that we can have discussion, instead of adding another speed tag. As of whether its notable or not, I've placed notability tag as I'm usually creating small stubs upon which other can expand. If it has to be deleted so be it and I have no issues with that, but I'm strictly against personal attacks which Biwom clearly has against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) 22:02, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

you need to comment on content, not contributors. Any issues you two have can be dealt with elsewhere but this is not the appropriate place to do it. Praxidicae (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. It's simply not notable no matter how you look at it. Bradv🍁 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the sooner the better. Obviously not notable, and the creator is already cluttering up sister projects, with a Wikidata item and Commons category, for this non-article. ARR8 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Jianhui67^T★C 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage and lack of reliable sources Reddragon7 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (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.