Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact High Project

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 redirect to Mass Appeal (media). MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contact High Project

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective Merge to Mass Appeal (media). While not notable on its own, there is a little bit of coverage in independent sources. Mass Appeal media already includes a list of projects that this would fit perfectly in. menaechmi (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (as the suggester, I would offer to do the merge if this AfD goes that direction) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even sure this deserves a mention in the parent mag. But wouldn't hurt. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the column were notable, there is no reason it would warrant a standalone article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:33, 25 September 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.