- 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. Sources by one of the commenting editors seem to firm up GNG issue. While advertising aspect needs to be cleaned up, appears to pass notability requirements. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Heritage Microfilm, Inc.
- Heritage Microfilm, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is poorly written and appears to be nothing more than an advert for the company. Almost all references are primary sources or closely affiliated third-party sources, or general listings. David Condrey log talk 06:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The Popick and Reilly articles cited at the page look legit too.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 18:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe keep likely as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2015 (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 keep. Sources by one of the commenting editors seem to firm up GNG issue. While advertising aspect needs to be cleaned up, appears to pass notability requirements. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Heritage Microfilm, Inc.
- Heritage Microfilm, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is poorly written and appears to be nothing more than an advert for the company. Almost all references are primary sources or closely affiliated third-party sources, or general listings. David Condrey log talk 06:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The Popick and Reilly articles cited at the page look legit too.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 18:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe keep likely as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2015 (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.