- 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. Elockid (Talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CLA Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}} – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable. Not promotion. Over coverage not; and if it was, that would be no reason to delete. Well referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject. Well written and well referenced.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid (Talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 15 March 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.