Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquatic Commons


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Aquatic Commons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I had previously nominated this article for speedy after not being able to locate significant reliable source coverage. Speedy nomination was removed citing the advice to "First look for sources & if not found, only then nominate for deletion." Since I had already done that prior to the original nomination, I am now bringing it to AfD. Perhaps someone else will have better luck turning up significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:GNG by being completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep satisfies WP:GNG. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment SimpsonDG, I haven't had similar luck discovering reliable sources which I imagine you are basing your !vote on.  Would you be kind enough to share some of those reliable sources so we can see them?  I'm happy to change my !vote if there is significant reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.  I just haven't been able to  locate it.   ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2011 (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.