Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.green

: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. Sandstein 05:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

=[[:.green]]=

:{{la|.green}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/.green Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|.green}})

Does this article fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:SIGCOV)? There's only two real sources that aren't blog posts and are independent of the subject. Further, if .green has an article, then so should .red and .blue (which both have an order of magnitude more registrations). Maybe we should have some sort of merged article on some gTLDs instead? Oeoi (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Redirecting to a list seems like the best outcome here, but I'm not seeing sigcov either. b uidhe 14:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Many sources are advertisements or passing mentions. Koridas (Speak) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (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.