Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Info Mesa

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. Nakon 01:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Mesa

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. There is a single book and a single article in wired about the term but it doesn't seem to have spread beyond a small group of people in the early 2000s Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two unconvincing references in obscure journals for "many survived"/"many died" weasels, two self-published, only one good reference. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a terrible article but it's missing things. Multiple News searches adding details found nothing and a Books search found a few results but nothing significant and the first one is the Ed Regis book. The term has not been widely used enough or recently for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 22 April 2015 (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.