Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lodge

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Lodge

Non notable, too few google results Tony Bruguier 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This guy is a virtual legend in the puzzle community. Perhaps more detail should be added to the article.YellowPigNowNow 04:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as usual, notability fails the 'common sense test'. For great justice. 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets notability standard for published authors as regular contributor to magazine with circulation way, way in excess of 5000. Monicasdude 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed. Circulation is at least 16 times the minimum number suggested by the standard. YellowPigNowNow 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, unless references and stats are added. -- P199 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT and should be easily verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 19:04
• Keep - per Brian0918, passes the WP:KIT. If Nidorino has its own page, Bob Lodge deserves his own page. Lonesomedovechocolate 02:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but should be expanded and referenced. Fishhead64 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete not notable. Jonas Silk 21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep for now — if article not significently improved in the next 90 days, it should be renominated for AfD -- Argon233 ^T _@ ^C _¶ ^U _∠  05:54, 6 April 2006 (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.