Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AaNet (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AaNet (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)

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The only references in the article only verify its existence, but are sourced to internet discussion forums AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not established. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Relatively passing mentions elsewhere, none of the refs provided pass WP:RS. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2013 (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.