Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribou Mathematics Competition (2nd nomination)

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. Sufficient consensus after the relisting. I note the arguments at AfD1 was based on the presence of mere announcements and similar nonsubstantial items. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caribou Mathematics Competition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

my original nomination stands, fails WP:GNG. mere 1 gnews hit [1]. and nothing from a major canadian broadcaster [2] . LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question The nomination says "my original nomination stands" but it is identical to the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caribou_Mathematics_Competition which resulted in "Keep". What has changed in the past few months? Spectral sequence (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

original nomination contained some weak arguments for keep, also consensus can change. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given at the previous AfD. -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — 202.124.74.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple indpendent reliable sources. Coverage is routine, mostly from websites of the schools that took part, about what would be expected for a comptetiton of this type. Nothing indicating broad significance or notability, or indicating that this is not just a WP:Run of the mill contest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:50, 15 June 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, L Faraone 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of university math departments run similar school competition. Liverpool have a fun-math program[3] Leeds as another. There might be scope for the for a wider article of the extension activities as a group. --Salix (talk): 22:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability; nothing in the article or above that satisfies GNG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:32, 20 June 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.