Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiance cycle ride

: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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

=[[Defiance cycle ride]]=

:{{la|Defiance cycle ride}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defiance_cycle_ride Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Defiance cycle ride}})

Don't see this meeting WP:NEVENT as well as WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:: See Talk Page. Canol (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:::What the hell, the talk page is empty. Do you plan to contest??Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:::: Perhaps you should look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Defiance_cycle_ride — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canol (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

::::{{edit conflict}} {{ping|Canol}} that is not the appropriate place to contest a deletion. Do so on the article's talk page. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete, no independent coverage showing up on Google when I looked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete my sweep of [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1CAASUA_enUS604US605&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22defiance%20cycle%20ride%22%20(site%3aindependent.co.uk%20or%20site%3atheguardian.com%20or%20site%3atelegraph.co.uk%20or%20site%3adailymail.co.uk%20or%20site%3athetimes.co.uk%20or%20site%3amirror.co.uk%20or%20site%3aexpress.co.uk%20or%20site%3athesun.co.uk%20or%20site%3aujnews.com%20or%20site%3atheweek.com%20or%20site%3amanchestereveningnews.co.uk%20or%20site%3athisislancashire.co.uk%20or%20site%3ametro.co.uk%20or%20site%3abirminghammail.co.uk%20or%20site%3ascotsman.com%20or%20site%3aheraldscotland.com%20or%20site%3awalesonline.co.uk) British media] did not come up with any sources, but I am willing to change my view if sources can be found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete No significant coverage at a quick look. ƬheStrike Σagle 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

: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.