Comment: A few results in Google Books and an additional fifty-five (55) results in InfoTrac news database archive. I'm no longer an admin, but I've certainly got no objections to its existence as an article. The subject appears to have a good deal of source coverage from secondary references. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation (while technically endorsing the close) The AFD was closed correctly but only had 2 participants, the nom and one weak delete. Thus, a good-faith effort to work on the article shouldn't be out of the question. It's pretty far out of my area of expertise but a quick Googling seemed to indicate that it's notable and probably passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but allow recreation - basically a PROD with some support (albeit, weak support). Discussion was fine and closer got it right on that basis. But we have a good-faith request from an editor in good standing (who discussed it with the deleting admin), the tacit (if not open) support of the deleting admin and some sources to substantiate the claim that an article would survive a future AFD. This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how DRV should work. Stalwart111 07:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is definitely how DRV should work, with a focus on improving the encyclopedia and good faith all around. Someday maybe they'll all be like this. :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grant request. Discussion was appropriately closed, but this was a borderline soft delete and there are no indications of any barriers to recreation with better sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
