Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badidas University Newcastle

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badidas University Newcastle[edit]

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

This article is a non-notable spoof of Newcastle University of which the only purpose is to attack that educational institution. The three references are a spoof website, a news story about a deal between Adidas and the university and a story not related to Newcastle University. Web searches for the name of the article only find social media links created by the same people who created the main attack website. TubularWorld (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator did not inform the creator of the article of this deletion discussion. I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, not because the purpose of the site is to attack Newcastle University, which is irrelevant, but because there is no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable enough --Ushau97 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable campaign. Lacks coverage by reliable sources. My search for reliable sources got only an activist website. Two of the article's three references are not about the subject. The remaining reference is the campaign's own website. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 20 April 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.