Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (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. → Call me Hahc21 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech[edit]

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

Redundant dab. None of the entries has an article. (The second link is actually piped to another article.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to the first link, Integrated Management Associates, which apparently is also known sometimes as Neo-Tech Publishing. (The font is "Neo Tech", without the dash.) ansh666 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below. ansh666 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's unreasonable to put Neo-Tech and Neo Tech on same dab - average user probably won't be sure which way it is written. As for the piping, easily sorted. Valid entries, meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Deleting or redirecting to one of the entries could only cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all valid entries, and I've just added another. PamD 12:17, 27 March 2014 (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.