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.
Unsourced, incomprehensible. No speedy deletion criteria fits for this case.
Alexius08 (
talk) 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep A quick
Google search shows that this is an important and widely used index in the financial world. The article happens to use a college textbook as its source. However, I don't see why this is a problem.
Northwestgnome (
talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep; while the article was in a horrible state when nominated, those problems have been fixed. Sourced, comprehensible, clearly notable.
Huon (
talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks Houn. It seems to me that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding and can be quickly closed.
Northwestgnome (
talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The improvements to the article have demonstrated notability.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 17:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article has improved and now features several solid references. It's a noteable index.
Majoreditor (
talk) 05:38, 18 October 2008 (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.