Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DenFa

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 speedily deleted by SouthernNights per CSD A7 (no credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DenFa (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)

Non-notable movement. Although the events may be notable in the history of Denver, the description is a newly-coined term that does not appear in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, possibly G10 or A11. Term is not used in the citations. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per Power~enwiki. Hard to assume good faith with this one. -Location (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creator admits in edit summary and on the talk page that sources don't cover this term. Creator claims to have heard it used. The article is an unsourced attack page that labels classes of people and institutions "fascist." • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re: attack page - is not attack page, is derogatory term. I did not write articles cited or file any lawsuits mentioned or participate in any actions referenced, i don't know if it meets encyclopedia reqs vs dictionary reqs, still new to adding/editing. Anon15324 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If article fits as a conspiracy theory and then works as valid article I can adjust based on how i understand topic, but my intent was not to present it as such. It was only presented to me as a term not a conspiracy theory, although connection could easily be made. Anon15324 (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to an A11 speedy deletion, since the original editor admits they've coined the term themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 2 September 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.