Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Off
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Time Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Procedural nomination; article has been tagged for notability since June 2007 and I could not find significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources through Google News/Books/Scholar. Skomorokh 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had little difficulty finding sources. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw those too; which do you think satisfy WP:GNG? The article remains unreferenced. Skomorokh 12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources appear to be available but someone needs to show some interest in improving the article. --Stormbay (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For the time period this was in print, this would have been a notable alt publication and circulation figures are rather substantial. That they continue to publish online actually puts them ahead of the curve in that regard. We're better off improving this than deleting so the only issues remain are regular editing. -- Banjeboi 05:32, 3 January 2009 (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.