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 keep.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Lack of reliable sources which establish notability.
Versageek 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The nomination appears to be based on just the most recent changes, which seem to have mistakenly removed sources. Please take a look at the
previous version where many suitable sources are given. I have offered the likely COI bearing account some advice, and will continue to attempt to help them move on to collaborating on improvement rather than trying to, apparently, control the article. Thanks --
Fæ (
talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Martijn Hoekstra (
talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep The article in its current state adequately refutes the rationale of the nom. J04n(
talk page) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - article is well-written, on a notable topic, and very well sourced with inline citations.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. Reflects the requisite RS coverage.--
Epeefleche (
talk) 21:21, 9 February 2012 (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.