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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Llewellyn separator (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)

no evidence of notability Accepted from AfC, but I can;t think why. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A scattering of cites on GS indicates that the name is recognized but the article is poorly written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - not a great article, but discussed in detail by a fair number of scholarly sources in the field --_nonsense ferret 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nonsenseferret. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (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.