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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBuxa[edit]

BrainBuxa (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)

The article fail GNG and Notability (web). I searched for the reliable Independent sources but i also fail to find any independent sources that show the notability of the subject rather than these ([1], [2], [3], [4]) four links which also seems self-published. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lacks independent sourcing to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This article lacks notability, and it appears to have problems with WP:NPOV and possibly outright WP:SPAM. The only significant editor is a user who's only edit is creating the article in question. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Also only a handful of hits in news/secondary sources; and even then, barely a mention. Aeonx (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (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.