The result was delete. None of the keep arguments address the issue of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which is required to meet the notability guidelines. Therefore they can be given little, if any, weight and so the consensus for deletion here is apparent. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
The article does not cite independent sources, and I did not find evidence that this subject meets the notability criteria. Previously prodded. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]