Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belaruski Chas


 * 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.  So Why  20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Belaruski Chas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested CSD. The article, created by a user currently blocked for sockpuppetry, doesn't contain any sources or external links to prove its existence, and an attempt by myself to find sources has failed. For this reason, the article might fail WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. Jd02022092 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Not a contested CSD but a declined A3 nomination as there is enough content and context in the article to determine what the article is about. I also looked to see if G5 would apply but could not determine if the creator was evading a block when they created this as there isn't any information that I could find about what other accounts they have used.  I have added a couple of sources and a link to their website, but I do not have enough knowledge in Russian to determine if they are notable or not.  ~ GB fan 11:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, with very slender evidence of existence. --Lockley (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I added a reference to Belarusian encyclopedia. To my mind the article in this encyclopedia is enough to think that this newspaper is notable. --Jarash (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 29 June 2017 (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.