Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodesialeaks

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesialeaks[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for web content or organizations. Seems to have been created by a COI editor who is still editing the page after (I think) validly changing their username.(their original username was the name of the group that owns this). My search could not find any independent reliable sources about this organization or what it does(which seems to be publishing historical information and trying to be repaid for taxes paid under colonialism); the only sources offered are this group's website and something else where the relevance is not clear to me. Intent seems to be to promote their cause.331dot (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's excellent analysis. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could probably be speedied as unambiguous promotion. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per nom. Only 11 Goolge hits - and even some of those are not relevant. No coverage of note (even the Danish newspaper link in the article seems to be dead).Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a NN website, whose owner has made a speculative (anti-colonisation) claim to HMRC, which is unlikely to be taken seriously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2017 (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.