Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnap and ransom insurance

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--JForget 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kidnap and ransom insurance

Kidnap and ransom insurance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

sounds like an ads - no sources Chris! _ct 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Google search demonstrates this is a large industry. The page could do with much more detail and referencing, but it clearly is an appropriate subject for an article. On what basis is it suggested this looks like an advert? I cannot see anything to support that allegation. --Mkativerata 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, good non-spammy summary of a major industry segment that you thank your appropriate deity you don't have to buy. Needs sources, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Dhartung, needs sources, but this is a worthwhile topic. There's actually a Dick Francis novel describing this industry from the inside. Accounting4Taste 14:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not to mention a recent major motion picture. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't have anything to add about this. BASE101() 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and WP:SNOWBALL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - SNOW I have added references, notable topic. Fosnez 08:35, 11 October 2007 (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.