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. Sandstein 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)reply
As per the tags I've added to the article, it would require a complete re-write in order to be encyclopedic.
Osarius -
Want a chat? 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Most of the references are self-published; the others don't actually mention the subject. Also highly promotional; I think it would qualify for
WP:G11.
ubiquity (
talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable, not properly referenced, not encyclopedic. Delete now.--
DThomsen8 (
talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I haven't even began searching yet and this seems obvious to where it is not set for an article yet.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:34, 7 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.
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. Sandstein 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)reply
As per the tags I've added to the article, it would require a complete re-write in order to be encyclopedic.
Osarius -
Want a chat? 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Most of the references are self-published; the others don't actually mention the subject. Also highly promotional; I think it would qualify for
WP:G11.
ubiquity (
talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable, not properly referenced, not encyclopedic. Delete now.--
DThomsen8 (
talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I haven't even began searching yet and this seems obvious to where it is not set for an article yet.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:34, 7 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.