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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources to prove existence of this. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMAG. Please ping me if sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, on verifiability grounds. I think it might be notable in the broad sense of the word, as in there being enough public interest in the topic to justify an article, but without sources there isn't much we can do. /Julle (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2024 (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.