Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binney & Burnham

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 speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for deletion - "This article is very short" isn't a valid reason, And WP:BEFORE wasn't followed either - Google brings up a few sources anyway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binney & Burnham[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very short (as in 2 sentences short) and has too little information to be kept as a page. It has one source, which does not even contain some of the information noted in the article. Will211 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being short is not a significant problem; it's just a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article being "very short" is not a proper AfD rationale. If there's a surmountable problem of a notable topic, fix it. It took only seconds to find coverage.[1][2][3][4][5] --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2016 (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.