Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Īhø taó känga

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 deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Īhø taó känga

[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)

Only single source that mentions the subject is PoetrySoup. Other information in the article seems to be unverified synthesis and original research by the original creator of this article. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a little searching to see what I could find. All I located was a YouTube channel created on 4 Jul 2021 with one video. I do not believe this poet has enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Coopman86 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the author seems like a sock. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any notability that warranted a Wikipedia article. SunDawn talk 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7, and possible hoax even (search finds nothing). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete due to notability issues at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject seems to be existing, but all other info seemed to be a hoax. The diacritics on the article name (rarely used on any Philippine language) is fishy and maybe related to recent deleted articles with the same naming convention.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't pass WP:GNG. Iamfarzan (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources used in the article even talk about the article subject. Most of them don't mention him, the others are not reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vandalism and part of a much wider concern which I have expressed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Begunpyrex Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable, the article is terribly written with bad citations, there isn't any more information besides the poem, not even personal details, perhaps too soon to write an article. RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per failure to meet WP:GNG.--ERAMnc 20:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not really notable, completely fails WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2021 (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.