Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIMMAA

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIMMAA (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)

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mixed Martial Arts Association, now its reappared, however its different enough that CSD-G4 does not apply here. Sorry folks, but we need a new afd to axe this again, so here we are... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did not vote on the original AfD and will hold off voting on this one. The nominator of the original (User:Haribhagirath) seemed to have a bone to pick with the organization and did a convincing job bringing into question the validity of the references. I see nothing that changes his points. Sections of this article were removed due to copyvio and I can't help but think the remainder has the same problem hidden somewhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also didn't vote on the original AfD, but my search of the sources didn't show me significant independent coverage of this organization. The sources either aren't independent or consist of a single passing mention in the articles. As the article currently stands, I don't believe WP:GNG or WP:NORG is met. Papaursa (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources don't establish notability because they are either connected to the organization or are trivial coverage. Fails GNG in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 2 October 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.