Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentionally blank 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. postdlf (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally blank page

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable topic. An Internet search yielded no scholarly or journalistic treatment of the subject. A cursory review of the article history indicates that the article may never have had a reliably sourced statement in its six-year life. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase is an oddity of fairly common occurrence. There is some curious historical information on it here. Taroaldo (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think an encyclopedia-worthy article could be written on this topic. It has to deal with the technology of printing and bookbinding. Tag for sources, leave it be. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Worthy topic, needs work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Needs work and sources, but I think this belongs on WP. Depending on the amount of source content available, merging into another article might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure where it would belong. --Tathar (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a fairly widespread practice in publishing. Bob talk 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's actually more Google News coverage for Intentionally left blank, which is a redirect to this page. At any rate, clearly notable concept which you're welcome to improve. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I may actually have to use the much hated "easily improved" for this one. Definitely in a crappy state, and I'll try to help out if I have time, but enough coverage is not only available but easy to adapt to the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a common practice in the publishing industry.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No conceivable encyclopedic article can be written about this. There are many pages marked in this way, but that doesn't make the subject notable, or even interesting. Are all the Keep votes jokes? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (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.