Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCarPS

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCarPS

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

pure advertisement. CSD tags removed ,so it had to come here. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a single reference that is a press release from the university where the two creators are students. A brief search did not reveal any coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11, and agree with above. Notability has not been credibly demonstrated, and it's heavily promotional. The user who removed the CSD tag has now been blocked for disruption. Murph9000 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sauood07, created in response to the blatant WP:EVASION and attempt to war-delete the AfD tag from the article. Murph9000 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Also, please note Draft:WCarPs, which has sourcing, but still insufficient. There just isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Waggie (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, author has been blocked for disruption, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry. See the SPI case page. As such, the CSD removal (done by one of the socks) was actually invalid, so this still could be deleted G11 if an admin agrees. I would support a speedy. Waggie (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional content about a non notable organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2017 (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.