Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniversityJunction.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- UniversityJunction.com (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 website that is the subject of this article does not work, and does not seem notable enough to have an article considering it is a dead site EtanaLF (talk) 22:36, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:31, 15 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The site appears to be dead, but that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. The lack of coverage in in independent reliable sources is, however, a reason for deletion. The references provided in the article do not establish notability. Campus newspapers are not reliable sources, and I cannot find any coverage myself that would indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 24 January 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, Courcelles 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails gng. Lack of rs coverage. I note, but just as an aside, that it was created by an SPA.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 29 January 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.