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.
Delete Searching for reliable, independent sources is difficult since all the hits are about United Nations Conventions on various things. But lacking any such sources, we must delete the article.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 19:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only source provided doesn't even support the content of the article. As Cullen indicates, the topic is pretty much un-Googleable. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete without prejudice to creation via AfC draft process, with clear notability. Per nom and all above. Good luck to them on ever SEO-ing their way above a gazillion pages talking about the "United Nations Convention" on everything. I'm not certain, but I think this article is basically an advert for a probably not-yet-notable startup company that possibly didn't think through their name in terms of search engines. It might not be an attempt at an advert, as there's too little there to reach much of a firm conclusion other than on lack of notability. It does meet
CSD A7, but I'm content to just let the AfD run.
Murph9000 (
talk) 21:33, 1 October 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.