Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peropesis
- 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. Star Mississippi 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peropesis (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)
The article does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The only thing I could find is this and while I don't think a DistroWatch listing shows notability in any way, I can maybe see an argument that a review like this would be different, but that was the best I could find and as far as anything that would even begin to show notability for the subject is concerned, it's all I could find. A single review in a questionable source is not enough to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, and the article's subject meets none of the criteria of WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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.