Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object pairing

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) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object pairing (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)

There is nothing to suggest that this concept is significant or notable in any field and I can find few (if any) non-Wiki related sources, none of which are particularly reliable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Encyclopedia shouldn't be for "here's a neat Idea I had". No sources out there to support this. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally unsourced WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references cited and quick search turns up nothing. Glendoremus (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (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.