Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Lee

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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Lee

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

I declined this speedy. This article appears to be "noted" in numerous reliable sources; however, it could be argued that the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth enough. As I can claim only passing knowledge of the notability requirements regarding corporations, I submit this to the community for evaluation. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's notable per WP:CORP's primary criteria. Has 3 secondary sources. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I noticed the secondary sources, my concern was that the mention of the subject was of a glancing and brief nature. Again, I declined to delete this as a prod and took it to AfD because I wasn't sure. I interpret the criteria to require that coverage be a bit more substantial. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, amend what I said, the coverage in the Globe and Mail seems relatively substantial, so I think you are right and the article should be kept. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (edited own comments, 21:42)[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.