Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Botsina (2nd nomination)

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The result was keep - nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botsina[edit]

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

Article was AFD-ed several years ago and tagged for more sources. I believe that the content was transwiki-ed, as that was the consensus at the time.

Since then, nothing has been done to improve the article, and it remains effectively unsourced over two and a half years later, suggesting that there is a very good chance it will never get those sources (and possibly raising issues of how well it can be sourced). Tyrenon (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient RS coverage, though much of it is under different spellings of the name, and in gscholar. As one would expect in this case, and as was reflected in the prior AfD. AfD is not for cleanup, and the refs need not be reflected in the article to satisfy our notability criteria (though that would of course be nice), but the article now as well itself reflects sufficient RS coverage, going back to 1889, and including a full section in a more recent RS devoted to the phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I'm convinced more by the different spellings than anything...on previous searches, the reference total had been rather thin, but the addition of several varying spellings (botzina in particular) makes a difference here (and generates a much more reasonable and substantial hit count to boot). There seems to be enough there now to both drop the AfD and to clear off the sourcing tag.Tyrenon (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I always an impressed when a nom withdraws a nomination, if appropriate --- too many editors seem to get caught up with fighting for their original view, rather than re-thinking it when new info arises. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 21 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.