 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 April 9. 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, and thus] kept There's not quite a consensus to keep - but clearly none to delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale - the article is verifiable and capable of neutral presentation, therefore there are no overriding policy reasons to delete. The nomination therefore requires a consensus in support. The GNG are guidelines, and whilst they may influence and guide those participating, they don't mandate deletion, absent such a consensus, even if the article were thought to fail them.
- Looking at the votes. There are 6 valid delete votes. (I'm disregarding that of Radman as "we don't need this" isn't a reason to delete it.) There are 5 solid keep votes (DGG Alzarian, DewKane, Dreamfocus, and Editor). That alone would give no consensus. There are additionally three more dubious keep votes, arguing for keep on grounds of procedure or lack of nominator's diligence, I attach less weight to these because they don't address the article's merits at all - but they tip things towards keeping at this time. Added together we've clearly got nothing like a consensus to delete - so the article is kept.