Deletion of It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

Comment: The only actual problem here is that this article was created in 2006, a time when we did not have the same rules about citing sources directly in the article that we do today — at the time, as long as it was verifiable that the topic wasn't an outright hoax, you were allowed to start an article with ''no'' footnotes in it and it was simply ''presumed'' that footnotes would ''eventually'' get added. Yes, that was incredibly stupid of us, and left us cleaning up a lot of garbage, which is precisely why the rules have been tightened up in the intervening 15 years — but that also means you can't ''just'' delete a 15 year old article for lacking sources, without first ''checking'' whether sources are available to ''salvage'' it with or not. Which they are here: I've already added three solid sources to start from a Gerald Pratley book and a ProQuest search, and there are ''46'' more hits to sort through in a newspapers.com search (which I'll need some help retrieving, as search is free on there but retrieval isn't, so adding some or all of them will take a bit more time.) That's plenty enough for a  pass: notability is based on the |existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST)