Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectLocker
- 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
ProjectLocker
- ProjectLocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article sources are mostly primary. MB 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
]
- Comment - Hi, can you please suggest some ways by which I can improve the quality of the article so that it is not deleted from Wikipedia? I have worked a lot on this article and I would really like to see this page remain on Wikipedia.Srivassumit (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails independent sources. That considered, I would be in favour of moving to draft space. DrStrauss talk 09:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: As was said above, the provided coverage is almost entirely primary, supporting a feature-list article (which appears to have been created as a coursework task). I am not seeing independent coverage which exceeds passing mentions and indicates ]
- 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.