- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
ArtAbilitation
- ArtAbilitation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable organization, somewhat promotional language, was only able to find passing mentions, but many of the mentions in a Google Books search likely refer to a different topic. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: The following links seem to establish in-depth, reliable coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Hazarasp ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Reasoning given for deletion is weak to the point of non existant. Promotional language may be a style issue with the page, but is not reason to delete, such concerns are better dealt with on the talk page of the article. "likely refer to a different topic". You cannot expect other editors to research this for you and to determine whether the mentions "likely" refer to another topic or not. We cannot delete pages based on a hunch. So you're only reasoning is "non notable" but this is not backed up by any explanation. Egaoblai ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: there are reliable references. however the promotional language should be fixed D8jang ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: after I fixed style issues, it seems to be good enough. If someone uses the sources Hazarasp found to expand the article, it would be fine. Alexius08 ( talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Withdrawn by nominator.. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
ArtAbilitation
- ArtAbilitation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable organization, somewhat promotional language, was only able to find passing mentions, but many of the mentions in a Google Books search likely refer to a different topic. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: The following links seem to establish in-depth, reliable coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Hazarasp ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Reasoning given for deletion is weak to the point of non existant. Promotional language may be a style issue with the page, but is not reason to delete, such concerns are better dealt with on the talk page of the article. "likely refer to a different topic". You cannot expect other editors to research this for you and to determine whether the mentions "likely" refer to another topic or not. We cannot delete pages based on a hunch. So you're only reasoning is "non notable" but this is not backed up by any explanation. Egaoblai ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: there are reliable references. however the promotional language should be fixed D8jang ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: after I fixed style issues, it seems to be good enough. If someone uses the sources Hazarasp found to expand the article, it would be fine. Alexius08 ( talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.