Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geier Indians


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Geier Indians

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable group. Only the referenced website refers to them, and even that refers to them as essentially unknown. The material was inadvisedly recreated from a prior version of Geier. Fences &amp;  Windows  18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: a previous version of Geier which was a ragbag of content was enthusiastically pruned in Nov 2010 to make it into a properly formatted dab page: a certain amount of sourced content was deleted in this process (probably un-noticed by the creator and main editor of the page, who has not edited much recently), including the matter which now forms this article. It has a reliable source, which itself cites 4 sources. I do not have access to those sources, but this group looks notable enough to merit a short WP article. PamD (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment have expanded article slightly. PamD (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep Article is just a stub, but the topic has sources and is encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - essentially per North8000. We don't delete encyclopedic content that has outside references simply because they're "essentially unknown." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - article on historical topic has more than one good source. -- Lady  of  Shalott  18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.