Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GM Watch

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. Mike V • Talk 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GM Watch

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

Unremarkable website with no independent sources. I was able to find only sparse coverage in reliable sources, not enough to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with OP, no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 1 March 2014 (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.