- 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OSAID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't indicate importance and too short yutsi (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note It neither needs to indicate importance, nor be of a certain length to escape deletion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article is poorly written, but could be salvaged, provided sources could be found. RadManCF (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Numerous non-trivial mentions from a google news archive search.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 February 2010 (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.