Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Repose

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social_Repose (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)

There are no references in existence anywhere in sources of reputable calibre to demonstrate the subject has sufficient notability to be included in an encyclopedia. This is because he doesn't. SatansFeminist (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very weak sourcing. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe the coverage in secondary news sources is out there; what's on the article is okay and indicates notability but sure, it could be better. Ss112 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of coverage as seen "Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&oq="Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3638.4027.0.4355.2.2.0.0.0.0.124.213.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1j4.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.-uD0lZqF4rI here. Not sure why the weird underline is included in the title of the nom? Is it in the article too? Needs to be removed before looking for sources covering this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2018 (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.