Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyuny Chadvar

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, no prejudice against recreation if sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oyuny Chadvar

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

This is an interesting case because it may not even exist anymore (no website and searches found nothing about it) so unless it actually got considerable coverage at one time and is improvable, there's nothing to suggest keeping this speedy and PROD-worthy article from May 2008 and there's simply been no improvement and all the involved and interested editors have since retired so there's no one to ping. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ifwe have noverifiable information towriteanarticle. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing to indicate that it meets, or ever met, WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Even if it is no longer in existence, the article claims it was established in 2006 which is recent enough that you would expect something to come up on google if it was notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to suggest they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 27 October 2015 (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.