Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Shift

:{{la|Nine Shift}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nine_Shift Stats])

:({{Find sources|Nine Shift}})

I don't think this book/concept is notable as far as the guidelines at WP:BK are concerned. See talk page for discussion. I flagged the problems with the page in June, and nothing has been done yet. Only discussion in a reliable source is one article on BBC News. Everything else on the internet seems to be self-promotional. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (Added sources and edited for PR'ish stuff). Note this link[http://aaph.org/node/380] shows the book being used as a primary text in a classroom setting which is one of the criteria for notability. There are also now sources from the The Futurist, NYT and BBC which meets the two multiple sources criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG per The Futurist article (see article for info.), [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DB1E30F935A35752C0A9609C8B63 NY Times article], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4508417.stm BBC article]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 4 October 2012 (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.