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. Michig (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar·· 02:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I know nothing about the general topic, but the subject and its sources are unpromising. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something on this level would need above-average coverage, since puff pieces and soft news coverage are common and unhelpful for notability. We're not even getting average coverage, let alone above-average. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (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.