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. KTC (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Economics and Business Studies Competitions[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No notability in general. Puffery at worst. Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone appears to have mistaken Wikipedia for a web host. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems this competition has been going since 2005, so a bit odd. It's not referenced by anything substantial, but clearly a going concern with some vague reference to it from some educational institutions. One year was sponsored by Price Waterhouse Coopers. Bit of a tricky one!

Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be that as it may, does not then (or nevertheless) suggest that this is not adequately, if indeed at all, notable, or that it fails to qualify as being adequately notable? I see this to fail most, if not all, of the criteria for general notability. Thoughts? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies for this; but, it has come to my attention that the account that created the article in question is a single-purpose account and, further, is owned by one of the previous co-ordinators of the Competition. This user may have a vested interest in the creation and retention of this page (and having his or her name on a piece of this part of the Web), and it is appreciable that there is potential for a conflict of interest. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing in NLA Trove, one of the best news databases for Australia. Generic Google search finds almost nothing as well. This is a new initiative it needs more time to establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:41, 6 November 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.