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.
No references and defunct magazine plus no Google hits except for Wikipedia.
Whenaxis (
talk) 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. I found a number of hits using Google. Defunct is never a reason to delete. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Alberta Report. The sources added fall well below the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources" that our policy requires. I am surprised, however, that a published news magazine, especially if the details of its columnists in the article are correct, doesn't have more coverage. I can't find any more coverage but the search terms are quite difficult to configure. Unless significant coverage can be found, this should be merged to the article of the BC Report's parent and subsequent iteration, the
Alberta Report, as there would be insufficient sources for a stand-alone article. A merge will at least preserve the limited sourceable content in the article. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Note: This article has been nominated for
rescue.
SilverserenC 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with Eastmain. Just because it is defunct doesn't mean it is no longer notable.
SilverserenC 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well if it weren't for you (Silver seren) and Eastmain, the article was a total mess before with no references, no external links and there were minimal Google hits. But now you have changed it after I nominated it.
Whenaxis (
talk) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
That's what we're here for. ^_^
SilverserenC 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Move to keep. Paul Erik's sources do appear to be significant coverage. Certainly not the others. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage appears adequate for notability purposes.--
Michig (
talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (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.