Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visegrad Insight (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visegrad Insight

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

No independent refs, tagged for notability. Since the first AfD nom on March 9 (not a single vote besides the nom) not a slightest effort was done to remedy the notability problem. It means nobody freaking cares. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course as the 1st nom nominator. User:Staszek Lem, please ping me in the future if you relist my nom, I saw this only by chance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any independent coverage using Google, although there is a bit of incedental coverage or POV coverage. Fails WP:GNG basically. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, seems like an advertisement. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2016 (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.