Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supply Network 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Supply Network Collaboration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As suggested by JamesBWatson, it doesn't meet CSD Criteria and is therefore being produced for AfC. The article is unencyclopaedic and not notable nor does it look like an article. Deletion required  Varun FEB2003   I am Offline 07:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. no evidence for notability  DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.  Varun FEB2003   I am Offline 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally unsourced, and no evidence of notability anywhere. (It seems to be an attempt to publicise the subject, though not so blatantly promotional to justify speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not even worth merging, since no sources and will never be independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - you're an admin right so.......you ain't deleting this?  Varun  FEB2003   I am Offline 08:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because I don't think it satisfies any of the speedy deletion criteria, as I have already told you on your talk page. However, it is no doubt going to be deleted in a few days, so it doesn't make a lot of difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened?  Varun FEB2003    13:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely non-notable, nothing coming close to substance and there are not even any attempts at minimally showing better. SwisterTwister   talk  03:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)]]
 * Delete -- no indications of notability; no sources; advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2016 (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.