Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnonCoders

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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AnonCoders (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, used to have massive COI material, which was removed, someone put on a PROD, which was removed by anon IP, so I am nominating at AFD Elektricity (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of lasting coverage. Most of the (not so much) coverage that is out there is limited to a few months in 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage is coverage, even if limited to a few months. The coverage isn't about a single event either. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, no, it doesn't. The significant coverage is there. The question is whether coverage published during a short period of time makes a difference. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - coverage is indeed coverage even if as obvious limited to a couple of months. BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I've searched again and have not found anything beyond the brief flurry of local/regional coverage of this then-new organization in 2015 that is already on the page. Unless someone can find something more, it fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage spans multiple regions (albeit in Kentucky), it isn't local, and the coverage is significant, by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is the very definition of WP:SIGCOV. The time period during which the coverage occurs isn't relevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Beg to differ per WP:SUSTAINED. That the coverage of this group is limited to a few short months in 2015 and it is not even mentioned since is a clear sign of lack of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It depends on whether you consider a few months sustained coverage. Also part of the same guideline: notability is not temporary. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (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.