Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GECMUN

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 per consensus --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GECMUN

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable annual event. Hardly any coverage is available and all references are primary sources. The first edition of the event just happened last year. The impact of the event (if any) is not clear either. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't a large, one time event, and 3 schools having a model UN doesn't meet WP:GNG . May also be WP:TOOSOON . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. All present "references" are just pages on the event's own website. There's nothing by way of legitimate sourcing and nothing in the content the context that gives good reason that more will be forthcoming. Indeed, google searches don't presently return a single result that doesn't direct to the afore-mentioned website. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:02, 8 April 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.