Deletion of Timanous (2nd nomination)

Comment: the article is chock full of |original research and |dead links.  I don't get it.  What's |so notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:GNG)

Comment: the references have been somewhat improved (probably enabling the article to meet ), but the article also needs to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV)

Comment: or '''Userfy''' - I'm not convinced the current sources are enough to substantiate notability. Unfortunately, most of the arguments made for keeping the article so far are straight from the list of |arguments for avoid during deletion discussions. Things like longevity, comparison to other subjects with WP articles, alumni and economic impact. While these things might help generate coverage, it's still the coverage we need to substantiate notability, not the things that might theoretically be covered in that coverage, if that makes sense. That said (if it made any sense), I'm inclined to think the long history of the camp mean it would have received coverage prior to the era of the internet. If such coverage could be substantiated then I think we'd get over the line. As such, I'd have no problem with userfication until such times as those sources can be found/added. I'm at ''weak delete'' because I think there's some room to |assume good faith that such sources might be added soon and so temporarily userfying this until then might not be in the best interests of WP. |TLDR - technically fails, can probably be fixed, happy if consensus is that it shouldn't temporarily be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:AGF||WP:TLDR)