Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kurt Aust

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Will undelete on request if any offline sources are located. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Kurt Aust

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this draft as it does not appear to have any hope (snow) on becoming an article with the only reference I could find (in a quick Google search on google.ca) was this. Additionally, this also appears to be a stale draft (failing WP:STALEDRAFT) as it has not been edited for (nearly) 2 years. TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * TheSandDoctor, WP:STALEDRAFT doesn't apply to this namespace. Perhaps you mean to use the English word "stale"?  Which meaning do you mean?  "Old"?  There is nothing stale, as in "gone off", about the content of this page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, you are correct - sorry for the mix up. I have struck out that part of my nomination. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It's really hard to know what to do with historical subjects like this that would only have off-line sources, such as the one reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: unfortunately, this subject probably isn't a viable topic for an article, as it there probably isn't sufficient coverage to ultimately satisfy the general notability guidelines. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.