Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students Circle Network

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. L Faraone 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Students Circle Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization appears to be defunct. It was probably never a notable organization. It has passed with barely a ripple. This page has not been tended by anyone knowledgeable of its fate and so gives the false impression that the organization is still in operation. This page should be taken down or edited to show that the organization is no longer in operation and discuss its fate. Thomasbhiggins (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment that a project is dead does not show it was not notable., tho it is relevant to the possibility of further sourcing. However, we can't say it is defunct without a source to prove it. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct or not, it doesn't appear to have been notable, or even to have gotten off the ground at all. Official site leads to a parked domain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This "keep" recommendation is not meant to imply that I think this organization is notable -- I have no particular opinion about that. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that the organization is "defunct" or that its web site is a "parked domain". As seen at [1], [2], and [3], the web site appears to be active, or at least still in existence. I don't think this article ought to be deleted based on a mistaken premise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:43, 24 June 2013 (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.