Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto & Travel


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus.  Wifione  Message 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisting the debate post a request by Epeefleche. Wifione  Message 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Auto & Travel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of rs coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since May. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep You said there's zero refs. Well, here's one link at the 'Clean Air Initiative' website, to start off with: . Mar4d (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Zero refs" refers to the fact that there are zero references in the article. See WP:REF. That is the case -- there are zero references in the article, and one EL. That EL, which indicates it is to the magazine's official website, is not helpful for me; I cannot seem to see any helpful information when I click it.  As to RS coverage, I indicated that I found there was a lack of RS coverage.  I don't see this link as satisfying our requirement for substantial, independent RS coverage by multiple sources. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify further, the single ref does not meet our notability standard, as it does not constitute the multiple sources that are generally expected. WP:GNG requires that there be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."


 * Plus, the lone source wasn't even independent. The magazine in question is a member of the "source".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No meaningful in-depth coverage in any reliable source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - No English language sources exist beyond the lone COI source presented above. While I'm open to a suggestion that it may possibly be notable in Urdu sources; the burden is on the creator (and those voting keep) to prove that which has not happened. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as above, only source provided so far has COI issues, and magazine otherwise fails to meet GNG. Dialectric (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.