Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Academic Detailing Collaboration


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Academic Detailing Collaboration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure if this is notable or can be improved as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and the best results were here and here (basically all passing mentions). There's also no possible target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister  talk  06:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Sources are extremely limited. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT, This was written in 2009 by an editor who contributed nothing else since then. It seems to be written like an advertisement, although not a well-written one.  And in fact, one of the sources has the extension /ADS.htm — Maile  (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (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.