Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swans Commentary

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swans Commentary

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

The only independent sources here are not actually about the website. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 00:22, 9 December 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.