Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CovertAction Quarterly (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CovertAction Quarterly[edit]

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

In the two and a half years since the previous AFD, none of the proponents for keeping who cited that there were reliable sources establishing notability have come forward to add them. Doing brief searches myself, I'm in the similar boat as the previous nominator, I just can't find any. Q ^{T C} 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This might be a good starting place. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added references to books anthologizing CAQ articles and to one Project Censored award (I believe there were several other such awards). JamesMLane t c 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm curious as to how searching for references would not find them... Notability is clear and well established by publications of the period it was most popular during... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded and sourced. Notability established. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (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.