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. joe decker ^talk 05:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekopedia[edit]

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

Contested PROD by now blocked user. All references on this page, which was created by an SPA, are primary references to the website itself. The website appears to have been defunct for some time now. My searches turned up no coverage of this website. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Every source provided is primary, linking to one of the various editions of the website in question, and I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT: (too) (many) (parentheses) and not enough sources. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better, still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 26 May 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.