- 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. Tawker ( talk) 06:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Executive Insight
- Executive Insight ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable niche magazine stub with no mentions in reliable sources. Benboy00 ( talk) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 01:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NMAG at this time. Gongshow talk 17:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Similarly, I was uanble to find sources evidencing WP:GNG. Highbeam showed a lot of bare hits, but after some time, I was unable to find one which did not appear to be a press release. -- j⚛e decker talk 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.