Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia's IE 2 Contracts


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Georgia&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no sources in this article;Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. Ingadres (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, also article is a mess. Aaabbccz  ( talk ) 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly it just needs a good editor to sort it out. Aaabbccz Tell me something  19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No references, minimal context into the big picture. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand enough of the article to know that without seriously major work, it's not going to make the grade. But what does "Brooks Coleman carried Governor Sonny Perdue's water[clarification needed] on HB 1209" actually mean? Possibly people in Georgia might know. (I do know what 'clarification needed' means, and presumably I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Georgian.) Abandoned by its creator, an SPA and brought here by a determined new account (not an SPA), its history consists of creation, maintenance edits and attempts at getting it deleted. I suggest we bow to the inevitable and get rid. If we don't, every piece of legislation in every state of the Union may end up with an article. (Not forgetting every piece of legislation in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada. the Welsh Assembly, the Parliament of Scotland, and anywhere else with states and a use of English.) Peridon (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's pretty rare that I have honest difficulty figuring out what an article is about enough to classify the deletion debate. While I'm not generally a fan it, this looks like a case for the Etch-a-sketch solution; shake vigorously and restart if there is enough verifiable material to warrant it. --Danger (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2011 (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.