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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply

PepperTap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 ( talk) 17:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as advertising alone, the information is advertising what this company is about and then what the services are, every single listed source is also advertising the company with several methods such as showing what their finance and company achievements have been or are going to be, interviews, listing the names of clients, investors or other people and companies; none of it comes close at all for becoming both substantial and non-PR. There's nothing to suggest actual hopes of meaningful improvements therefore, if this only serves as advertising, we delete it lest we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above - failed startup, when half the article is funding rounds you know they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for stuff to put in their Wikipedia advertisement - David Gerard ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm ambivalent about keeping or deleting this article, but I wanted to point out that 1) I almost entirely rewrote it, so I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to the article as the company's "Wikipedia advertisement" or to say "they" were scraping the bottom of the barrel as I, a major contributor to the article in its current form, am entirely unaffiliated with this defunct compny 2) I'm not sure if it's possible for the article to be advertising anything at all since the company no longer exists 3) The article is four paragraphs, and one of the four paragraphs is (partially) about funding. The others are about its history, business model, and demise. Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I originally speedied this as yet another semi promotional article about an unremarkable business, but I'm leaning towards the position that the collapse of the company makes it interesting...see [1] TheLongTone ( talk) 12:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm, good find. Any more like that and I'll change my opinion - David Gerard ( talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The Quartz article linked above by TheLongTone is already used as a citation in the article, FYI. Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Seems notable. [2], more. Anup [Talk] 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: passes WP:GNG. Pratyush ( talk) 17:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a space of dumping high failure with grand funding and bragged about the startups you have started. grand failure written like a saga (does not mean written so much). Leave something worth to be here, than such promotions (it is enough to have Wikipedia page itself). this is about encyclopedia not dumping your grand mistakes to build personal portfolio for the future funding. Wikipedia gives the highest edge for such companies building highest degree of credibility/ notability online which they are definitely not. Even its just a paragraph to write about else Getting funding from A - B- C -D? is there anything else to write about this startup? what they really achieved so far being creation of encyclopedia material. This is not some profile to write when someone gives you money in a huge amount so you can become encyclopedic significant. Let them become significant first to write about here. Whats the hurry? Search and this startup is definitely not ended but building new ones using this failure as a milestones. This is promotional after even being dead. Reason for the AfD Light2021 ( talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

A quick Google search indicates they are significant. According to the article it clearly says it is closed with no mention of building new ones. Quoting WP:CORPDEPTH "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Also whether a company should or should not have a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with how big or small a company is. Pratyush ( talk) 10:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Significant how? blatant advertising and PR articles written all over the popular media? Yes I searched and read carefully the intend and how it has been written, clearly written like script given to media. Definitely influenced by company if not paid. That is significant for you? How easily you misuse WP:CORPDEPTH, and mentioned here. That does not mean every article published in daily newspaper should become Wikipedia article? Highly doubtful that you read about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? Laying off huge numbers or people or getting funded by IIT people? Closing of business operations? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup who failed miserably in doing business? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper like any other influeenced media by such insignificant Startups who just got funded by investors. You are saying with the logic of WP:CORPDEPTH, we should make wikipedia a press release website or probably a directory for such funded startups? Light2021 ( talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers, it is not the same thing to simply state "Satisfies GNG" without, both times note, not actually acknowledging and considering the analysis shown and what it actually emphasizes, which of course are the concerns. Therefore, if the analyses have clearly shown there is in fact nothing for WP:GNG, especially because of the large and acceptable PR intents and environment, there is then no acceptable article. Once we start blatantly compromising to keep articles because of whatever is listed or whatever seems to be suggesting "news", is when we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

What you failed to see is, the sources present in the article and mentioned by NorthAmerica clearly indicate it's notability. It also passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The content present is not much different in style from Google Express and AmazonFresh. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted. Pratyush ( talk) 10:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument at AFD, and usually means the other stuff referenced needs an acerbic eye - David Gerard ( talk) 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the mention. Now striked. Still I don't think it should be deleted. Main reason given by the nom is the small size of the company but size of the company has no mention WP:CORP. 10:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@ PratyushSinha101: Thanks for further clarifying your !vote by mentioning the sources I have provided below. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- "was India's third-largest grocery delivery service" suggests notability. With the company having shut done, it's unlikely that the page would be used for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I searched the mystry of the claim "being The India's Third Largest Grocery Delivery service". Quartz article start with the sentese. and Link is mention in the articles that links to this: YourStory article (Which Wikipedia does not allow as a reference, its just a blog written by these people alone, not even a journalism) and then Guess what? Written by none other than Founder himself! Just for information and media portrait of this startups. Light2021 ( talk) 19:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Yep. There's no evidence this is actually true - David Gerard ( talk) 20:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, there are many other sources that says the same, third largest grocery store. Such as, Hindustan Times, International Business Times, VC Circle. Anup [Talk] 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

IBT and VCCircle? Seriously? They can write about the people or anything for that matter,and have you really seen who writes articles on such blogs, they are not even a Recognized Indian Journalistic platform or certified News agencies. Once in a life coverage on HT, not for its significance, what the grand failure of such startups? is this why we are contributing to make Wikipedia? or is this really a purpose of building Wikipedia here? Light2021 ( talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Although stating that "third-largest grocery store could be convincing, there are clear advertising intents here, thus that takes importance, regardless of any potential signs of notability, because once we allow any such advertisements, regardless of whether the company is currently still existing or not, is when we become damned as a neutral and ad-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Leaning Delete -- I trimmed the article some, and there's not much there. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but this trimming removed many sources from the article. They may be routine coverage, or maybe not, but it is still worth mentioning here, while the topic's notability is being discussed. Here's the diffs: diff, diff, diff. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. Also, it's rather difficult to do business with a company that is no longer in business anyway, but again, the content is not promotional at this time. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

"company that is no longer in business anyway, but again, the content is not promotional at this time". It is wrong that this company has ended operations. This company is active with Logistic services. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/peppertap-to-shut-down-grocery-delivery-to-focus-on-its-logistics-business/articleshow/51950463.cms On "the article does not have a promotional tone" : There is not even a article to read except a paragraph. Light2021 ( talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Check out WP:NOEFFORT. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

What check out? I know what that is? Have you seen AfD selections. Do you really think I am not aware of Wikiepedia guidelines and just spending my time to improving it by spending so much time. These organizations or people are making this Encyclopedia what it never meant to be, can not justify the arguments putting policies and guidelines. Anyone can see what's really written on this article. I would love to improve that article instead writing here, if only there is anything to write about. Just can not write same as written in covered news (Blatant promotions and press). It is not just Wikipedia. Wish they would have significant enough. They are not! however putting the points of giving guidelines. Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I am really Sorry, but not convincing me. If the community have their verdict, I am just a part of it. Let it be. I will accept whatever they decide collectively. Will keep improving what it really stands for. Probably they would in future with their Logistic division, they should deserve their place here. Right now it really insignificant. Light2021 ( talk) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Northamerica1000 has taken to snideness and belitting other editors in AFDs in the past few days, an unfortunate tack - David Gerard ( talk) 07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Pointing to a section on an essay page is not belittling whatsoever, nor is it intended to be. People point out areas of the essay all the time at AfD. Please try to assume good faith. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please try to supply behavioural evidence that doesn't contradict an assumption of bad faith. I'm far from the only one noticing this - David Gerard ( talk) 09:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

WP:NOEFFORT was stated in response to "There is not even a article to read except a paragraph" above. That's all; no ill intent here whatsoever. However, I apologize if anyone was offended. My comment consisted of three words that created a neutral phrase, in both meaning and intent. I will leave it at that. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I have expanded the article a bit, but I hesitate to spend a great deal of time on it; if the article ends up being deleted, the work to expand it is also deleted. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

As I see from my opinion alone, you have not expanded or added any significant information to this company, instead you have merely made a separate block with headings nothing but from that one paragraph. Still there is nothing to write but one paragraph about this company. Light2021 ( talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment and analysis - There is essentially nothing else to actually say different about this company if not only that the article currently still only focuses with funding and other trivial activities, the fact that it I ly existed a mere few years shows that it could still in that be advertising especially if the people involved want to advertise what the had and in the likely hopes someone else would reinitiate their funding. Still, a mere few articles about how it ended still shows the fact there would be no actual substance for a convincing article. With this said and the fact shoeing there is still such trivial information starting about funding and its other business activities show there is nothing else actually significant to say about this company. All of my analysis shows clearly above the concerns involving this. Considering how staunchly persistent advertising campaigns are here at Wikipedia, we must not be coaxed unto convincing something that is still advertising what the comoany was about, regardless of what the company's fate was because, we have in fact still advertising articles that contained items such as lawsuits and other unpuffery, but those were still shown to be advertising, simply in a crafted sense and attempting to be surreptitious about these intents. Once we become a PR web host about any companies, regardless of their status, we are not the encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The sources I provided above (with one exception) are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. The Economic Times source is not bylined, but is independent, reliable and provides significant coverage. Also, this company was not in business for only a few months. Per the article, it was founded in November 2013 and remained in business through at least January 2016, closing in April 2016. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment and analysis - The concerns listed here have been clear and exact, including in showing where the concerns are, so they ultimately still cannot be considered "independent", "reliable and "significant". Once again as always, there has been established consensus at AfD that the concerns of Indian news media containing pay-for "news" is a serious concern, and therefore extreme caution is needed for any of these companies, especially because there have notoriously serious cases. Another serious concern, and it continues, certainly not helping if we continue accepting such blatant advertisements, are the excuses and defenses are used of "Hey, if you're hosting that advertised article with only its PR and republished PR, my article can be published too, let me simply submit it myself and accept, instead of actually listening to concerns", is something that we can actually halt, if we take responsibility and remove such advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Assertions of the sources I have provided as being somehow paid for by PepperTap to be published should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. Without proof, there's no qualification for the assertions, other than subjective personal opinion. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. As such, the sources I have provided objectively serve to qualify the topic's notability. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• That is not the assertion. Please reread the detailed analyses people have provided - David Gerard ( talk) 09:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• "... there has been established consensus at AfD that the concerns of Indian news media containing pay-for "news" is a serious concern" and "republished PR" above (particularly "pay-for "news"") implies that PepperTap compensated the respective news sources to publish the articles I provided atop in my !vote. Thus far, no proof backing this assertion has been presented, other statements of "there are no assertions" and "that is not the assertion". North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There are no assertions because I have visibly and noticeably listed everything of concern above, exactly what is unacceptable and exactly what is PR, nothing can be said otherwise of what the company's plans are and of the specifics that were added to them, this is something that only the company cares about, and it considerably show through their repeated attempts at passing "news" when it's in fact simply their own company-supplied information. As consensus has established at AfD, and I'll state again, merely the news source being known is not a basis of accepting an advertisement, especially if the contents are themselves only for PR and advertising uses. There are never any benefits from keeping an article as it simply damns the foundation and environment of Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, the sources I've seen go into the company in relative amount of depth, hence seems notable. Pwolit iets ( talk) 14:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

can you state the sources you have really been through? have you really read the content of those articles? merely press coverage or Saga of future plans and Grand failure story. From the very niche segment of category becoming Third Largest "Online Grocery" store. Not even a store. What is so significant about that? its like saying by some startup who launched just after Whatsapp or innovative like startup that We are the second most important company. That is exactly how this " Third Largest" has been covered by media. Complete influenced by company itself. No news makes such news. Light2021 ( talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, some of the newspapers aren't so obscure that they don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Also, the fact that the company name is in the title of the story indicates they are not being mentioned in passing. Thats what I meant. Other reasons i voted keep are phrases such as "third largest grocery store in India". Imagine the third largest grocery store in the Uk or USA being deleted. No? Then it shouldn't be deleted from India either, especially considering India has a much higher population than both countries. Pwolit iets ( talk) 03:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Size of the company or numbers of the customers any company serve to, popularity, press release or being funded by notable investors is not the criteria for encyclopedia material here. Discussion based on that US and UK have their pages so Indian should also have, does not make sense here. Though can you be more specific about the "Third Largest UK or US store" you are refereeing to (as per imagination)? This is neutral encyclopedia, not geography specific. On the other hand the claim made by company is highly questionable. Fake claims with no clear research is not something Wikipedia is a part of. Can you give the research apart from company given data to media. I could not found any substantial data for the claim that it was Third Largest how? in terms of funding it got? Probably yes! or number of people they recruited. Probably yes! and ultimately they have to lay off people and even shut down this division from the company? Probably yes! how is it " Third Largest" ? If you can provide data to prove apart from company imaginations or merely proposition, I would love to understand more. Light2021 ( talk) 08:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The fact is the contents themselves, however, if the contents themselves were PR sources, then we are certainly not going to accept them; this could also be the case with a UK or US company, since we have the same levels of attention to anything that is PR, hence making it unacceptable regardless; also, the claims that simply because the company's name is mentioned in the mere header is not a basis alone that it must be significantly about them, because the comments above show the concerns, and they show that simply stating "it's a news source" is not meaning the same thing if the contents themselves are unacceptable and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - A simple Keep stating sources and "seems notable" is not carrying the same weight as then actuslly acknowledging and considering the stated analyses and concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 16:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard ( talk) 09:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The newspapers relied on for sources are notroius for their unreliability, and will essentially reprint any press release they are given. The article was written for the prupsoes of promotion; while thereis no longer anything to promote, there's also no reliableevidence for notability now or ever. Claims in thes newspapers for third largest without more exact information are best interpreted as mere puffery. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment to closer – Please take note that on the article's talk page at Talk:PepperTap, in the past, two users had contested speedy deletion nominations for this article, providing their respective rationales there. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• And one of them was most likely an undisclosed paid editor. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Those comments meant nothing regarding notability and were certainly not convincing since they merely stated they had added sources or "attempted my best to add them", none of that affects an AfD, and in fact, it may actually benefit the AfD because no one ever actually cared to substantially improve the article. The only closest one to being acceptable of the contests was the last one which at least stated they were "third-party sources". SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The comments on the talk page are conferrable as opinions regarding notability, in part where one user states, "The company has been covered in several news articles", and more directly and particularly, another user states, "citations to third-party independent reliable sources which devoted significant coverage to PepperTap are present in the article". Such commentary should naturally be taken into consideration, rather than ignored. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Covered by major media or citations only does not amount to its credibility. Companies makes press releases or script is given to media to write about their daily operations, their failure or being funded by various notable. Wikipedia will become directory for such companies. "What" (depth of coverage) is covered by media is more important than Who (popular media or daily news paper) covered it. Light2021 ( talk) 15:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It definitely meets the CORPDEPTH. People seem to tag each and every sources PR like it is a new-trend in company related deletion discussions. Seems like a phobia to me, an entity is shut-down but still paying agencies to force staff-editors to write articles about them in which they compare them with others who comparatively are more successful in the business and are still running (like this one). (I didn't mean to hurt anyone's sentiment, it's my personal opinion addressed in general. If you are still feeling bad after reading this, I'm sorry!) Anup [Talk] 15:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

You can find other sources as well, This company is not shut down. The PR still matters a lot for such companies. This company is active with Logistic services. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/peppertap-to-shut-down-grocery-delivery-to-focus-on-its-logistics-business/articleshow/51950463.cms On "the article does not have a promotional tone" . Apart from that, what is actually to write about that statup? Got highly funded and got closed its opearations. The end of article? How is that even significant by any logic. If you even collectively go through all the press and media. There is nothing to write except 1 paragraph. Else what you have mentioned " Phobia" . I have no idea for its relevance here. Light2021 ( talk) 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I came though one interesting finding though, Anup was very quick on deleting Delhivery, Where discussion was not required. On the same ground or logic, Peppertap is in high competition with Delhivery. And not enough generating profit or funding as Delhivery probably had till date. These both companies are nominated as AfD by me only. One got deleted difinitely by Anup, but for Peppertap there are comments coming for its credibility. As Peppertap is still active with its Logistic division that is directly competing with Delhivery. I understand you are not related or working or anyones interest. But curious for different stand for both the entities. [ [3]] Light2021 ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Stay curious. Good for you. It would be nice if you be reasonable as well. Anup [Talk] 05:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep There are only 23 companies listed in Category:Defunct companies of India which does not have a Category:Defunct retail companies subcategory. To compare see: Category:Defunct retail companies by country which lists countries with Defunct retail companies. Defunct companies are of particular interest to many. Ottawahitech ( talk) 09:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC){{small|please ping me} reply

The whole article is based on misleading information that this company is defunct. First, this is not a company, its a brand name of a Logistic company which is not " DEFUNCT". It is active. Nuvoex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. They even updated information on article, which is partially given as fact. They have closed merely grocery delivery services. Light2021 ( talk) 05:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete . Its notable for one event only: its rapid rise and fall. Wikipedia is not a financial newspaper and India is so vast most people have probably never heard of PepperTap. It's time we tightened our stance against these corporate listings because that's all we seem to be doing these days at NPPand AfD. WP:NOTNEWS -completely as per the nom and the other arguments that support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete If you take away the routine coverage about opening and closing, there is literally nothing else left. Every single of the 6 sources above talk about the closure of the company. I don't see any non-routine significant coverage beyond this. We do not need to keep article like these - about a company which existed for a couple of years and then closed. This is precisely WP:CORPSPAMand we can do without it. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete outside the press releases and information on the closure of this briefly lived company, there isn't much left. Keep arguments seems to be successfully rebutted, or confusing in tone like Ottawahitech's. I agree with Kudpung we need to do something with all these articles on recently formed companies and the press releases written about them. This is getting out of hand. Prevan ( talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree that there isn't much here for an article. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 01:30, 17 October 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.