- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Themodmin[edit]
- Themodmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a software company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP criteria. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own self-published Facebook posts, and shows no evidence of GNG-building coverage about it in reliable sources independent of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost entirely sourced to itself, and that to Facebook. Created by an SPA, likely with a COI. It's an advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only thing I could find that was anything approaching a third-party source was this from the Design Institute of San Diego, which is a link to Themodmin's YouTube tutorials, and and that doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. Could not find anything on Newspapers Extended. BBQboffin (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2023 (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.