Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precisely Right (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Right

[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)

Not at a high enough level and doesn't have the coverage needed. 2008 AfD was no consensus when standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some sources that appear to be about the organization, but none of those are available online and (based on titles) do not make clear that they are in-depth coverage about the organization, though the article in The Star-Ledger might be the strongest, depending on content. Most of the article (and corresponding sources) is for competeion results and does not demonstrate notability. A Google / Google News search did not turn up any additional sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant independent sources other than local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2020 (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.