Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempus Thales


 * 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. MuZemike 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tempus Thales

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notable ? thisisace (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
 * thisisace (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP (iCE Advertisements article) per previous related Afd discussions ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trank -Sodium N4 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * iCE Advertisements may be salvageable but strong delete for Tempus Thales, fails ALL major policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, AND WP:N. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the iCE Advertisements article as it has received significant coverage in both the film BBS: The Documentary and appears to have relevant coverage on Google Books archives as well. I am unable to find meaningful coverage from third party sources for Tempus Thales, but would be fine with delete or a redirect to the iCE Advertisements page if that might stave off recreation until such coverage shows up, if ever.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs improvement, needs verifiable material, but neither is a reason for deletion.  Given material is available, article should be improved, not deleted.  As for notability, given that the person was clearly notable at one point in time in one community, it just needs to be verified. --Buridan (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That this article was even nominated for deletion smells like someone is using Wikipedia to stoke an old flame war.  Art Cancro (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I completely understand the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion, although I'm not sure lumping the person together with the group was a good idea.  I support a redirect to the iCE Advertisements page.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep please ice advertisements has notability and tempus thales can be redirected for a unique search term yuckfoo (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (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.