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.
This does not appear to be a notable organization. Most of the sources in the article simply mention that it exists, not that it does anything of note (other than be related to
another article of questionable substance). —
Ryulong (
琉竜) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)reply
And what about the sources not in the article, but readily available from the news, book and scholar searches linked above?
Phil Bridger (
talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
None of it really seems to show anything other than it exists.—
Ryulong (
琉竜) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I commend you for your speed-reading ability.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 01:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep as this nomination seems to be on the basis that there are limited on-line resources and seems to completely ignore the off-line sources which a Google search above says exist.
Technical 13 (
talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (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.
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.
This does not appear to be a notable organization. Most of the sources in the article simply mention that it exists, not that it does anything of note (other than be related to
another article of questionable substance). —
Ryulong (
琉竜) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)reply
And what about the sources not in the article, but readily available from the news, book and scholar searches linked above?
Phil Bridger (
talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
None of it really seems to show anything other than it exists.—
Ryulong (
琉竜) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I commend you for your speed-reading ability.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 01:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep as this nomination seems to be on the basis that there are limited on-line resources and seems to completely ignore the off-line sources which a Google search above says exist.
Technical 13 (
talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (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.