Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PECTAB

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PECTAB

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

Non-notable orphan, like the kid who played the kid who wasn't Annie. Only relevant to a non-notable system. No potential for growth. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remember that being an orphan (WP:ORPHS) or the potential for growth are not the focus of the AFD. The article seems, however, to fail WP:GNG which is a relevant point. Also seems to be a potential ad, which is not encyclopedic. I lean towards "delete" but I have no grounds at the moment to confirm it. Some of the information found on a simple google search seems to lean me towards "keeping and expanding" the article. So for now I abstain from expressing my view. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this data template subject merits its own wikipedia article considering its been an orphan since 2010. It will likely remain a stub which won't serve anyone's encyclopedic interests. --Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2012 (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.