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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – it looks like there's a minimal amount of notability established via the sources currently listed. MuZemike 06:05, 27 July 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.
Keep. The sources are reasonable, and as there is little sense that this is promotional it is OK to relax the WP:N detailed sourcing requirements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]