Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reflections Projections

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. Note that this was done per the language of the guideline (and despite the warning of the bot) which lists this as an option at the end of sparsely attended discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections Projections

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This does not seem to be a notable conference - I don't find anything other than run-of-the-mill coverage. The article has been unreferenced for over nine years, and most major contributors have been single-purpose accounts likely connected to conference organizers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with 9 years and no sources I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:09, 27 March 2021 (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.