Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Goldman (utopian)

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldman (utopian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Notability issues, only sources from local area GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and notable. If Stelton had an article that would be a good merge target, but it's been incorporated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is very confusing. Samuel Goldman (utopian) is a redirect to Fellowship Farm Cooperative Association. What has been proposed for deletion here? The redirect or the article the name redirects to? I have a hard time believing it is the latter because that article is clearly well enough sourced to survive any challenge, and surely it should have been nominated under its own name. If it is the former shouldn't the nomination say that it is an effort to delete a redirect to avoid confusion? Has someone played games here and changed article names while the deletion is being discussed? Either the editor who nominated this for deletion or one of the editors who has worked on the page, or both should clarify what is happening here. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking in on this sooner. It appears that the creator of the article has gone around this process and moved the article to a new title and added sources, effectively rendering this AfD moot (though also changing the focus of the article considerably). I'll give this more consideration shortly, but I would like to state for the record that I was given no notification about the changes to the article, nor offered any chance to collaborate on improvements. GlassCobra 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you may want to withdraw this nomination as what is there now seems well sourced. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (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.