Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mineral Royalties for Citizens and Military

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral Royalties for Citizens and Military

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I fail to see anything resembling significant (or trivial) coverage of the subject, discussed here-in by any media-source or book or academic journals.

Frankly, going by it's proposed ramifications, if it had managed to evolve to anything beyond the brain-storming-stage, it ought to be national-fodder for a span of time and I don't remotely recollect reading anything about this in print-media.

Also, the write-up style significantly indicates that we are being used as a promotional-tool to promote the proposed idea and Rahul Mehta, a wannabe-politician himself.

And, off-wiki evidence along with the edit-summary at this edit indicates that the article-creator has an undisclosed COI.

Furthermore, some integrally linked-article(s) are Right to Recall and Transparent Complaint Procedure , which has it's own share of problems and has been dispatched for it's trial by fire ∯WBG^converse 13:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG due to lack of any reliable coverage. The article is clear self promotion for a non registered right group and is completely based on WP:SPS. There is nothing salvageable here. Kudos to the nom for digging this out. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DBigXray. Looks entirely like WP:PROMO with no independent WP:RS and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2018 (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.