Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CounterStrike Table Tennis

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. ✗plicit 23:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CounterStrike Table Tennis[edit]

[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)

Sources are not reliable to show notability under WP NCORP rule Edit.pdf (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the references look reliable enough, (i.e. Indianapolis Business Journal which appears to be reliable and is independent from the subject), and I feel it has enough references, however I would like to see some more added to the article. Performing a WP:BEFORE search shows multiple results. I recommend you use the find sources tool^{(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)}, as it looks like it's notable enough. They just need to be added to the article and that should be rather easy considering there are many. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 21:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two news items in Gnews, a PR piece and the Indianapolis Business newspaper thing. I'm not seeing extensive coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP

Let'srun (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not meet WP:NCORP Note that aside from the import genius entry, which is not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources are not independent of the subject. Two are even rewrites of the same thing [1][2], casting doubt on the reliability of either. —siro χ o 18:32, 30 June 2023 (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.