Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riskdata (3rd 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 procedural close. This is a duplicate of a currently-open discussion. I have copied relevant comments to the other discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Riskdata
• Articles for deletion/Riskdata (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Riskdata (3rd nomination)

Riskdata (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)

Notability. Speedied this, but somebody decided that there was acclaim of notability in one of the refs. Presumably the FT one, which is behind a paywall. The other is thinner than a Rizla Blueself published. TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: AfD already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riskdata (2nd nomination). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw. I thought that Twinkle did not commit such solecisms....TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the inventor. Deb (talk) 16:13, 2 February 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.