Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group FMG (2nd nomination)
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Group FMG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep barely enough RS ... would be nice if the external links could be nixed BlueSalix (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Added Hoover's ref, making it close enough to WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - won 4 Webbys which is like the Oscars for media. Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrbengal (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - winner of an award from PrintWeek [1]
- 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.