 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 July 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 no consensus. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological explanations. This is a borderline case, as recognized by the previous AfD's closer. The issue is whether our notability criteria are met. A majority of opinions think that they are (8 keep to 4 delete and 2 merge opinions, according to the auto-count). Most "keep" opinions are relatively weak, in my opinion, because they address the sourcing situation only in the aggregate, which they consider sufficient for notability, and do not address the nominator's very detailed analysis of the quality and depth of the sources. On the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, I am inclined to close this discussion with a deletion. However, because the evaluation of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, I am reluctant to unilaterally dismiss the holistic approach pursued by the "keep" side outright. On the whole, therefore, I can't find in this discussion a sufficiently clear consensus to delete the article, and must apply the principle "when in doubt, don't delete". Sandstein 06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]