Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River (Article)

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River (Article)

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This old article does not appear to have been created in the right place, and it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG even if it had been. Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Userfy to User:Clairecramton/Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River and replace with Inactive userpage blanked. It looks like notes that might be useful in building content.  User was clearly confused, but no need to hide their notes from them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – this article seems to have been created as part of this course and was later [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AUnited+States+Education+Program%2FCourses%2FAmerican+Culture+204+%28Frank+Kelderman%29%2FSandbox+Narrative+of+an+Expedition+to+the+Source+of+the+St.+Peter%27s+River moved to the wrong place by mistake]. Graham 87 08:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia, it will never become an article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason for the assumption that it can never be used for an article. The expedition is notable, and the report might be separately notable as well.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but how is it notable? The only citations appear to be self-referential. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2016 (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.