Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ataria (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ataria
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article went through AfD previously with the result of delete. It was moved to userspace to be incubated, and now has been moved back. But the originally issue still stands. There is insufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability. The addition of a passing mention in a single book does not substantiate the notability effectively. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete this is essentially recreation of previously deleted material. I'm seeing the same issues identified in the original AFD. RadioFan (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Clearly notable, a Class 1 site of Habitat of European Community Interest. Sufficient citations to 3rd party RS are present. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment as the person who worked on it in userspace. It's not a G4, it's sourced and some notability is established. It's significantly different to the previous version and I ran it by the deleting admin before reposting and he agreed it wasn't a G4. I think the architecture nominations help establish notability. English language sources are an issue but they don't mean it's not notable. No !vote as I believe my move back to mainspace probably represent a COI. I'll say what I did at the last AfD -  if it's deleted again, please send it back to my userspace and I'll work on it again. There are more sources out there but I believed the ones present in the article are enough to establish notability or I'd not have moved it back. StarM 02:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure about the notability, but a merge to Salburua would be an alternative to deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. StarM moved this back to mainspace on my advice.  It looked likely notable and certainly improved in enough in sourcing to not be eligible for a speedy deletion as recreation.  On the merits, the sourcing in the article is still pretty thin but more sources are likely, perhaps in Basque, given it's status as a local attraction and nomination for the architecture.  Though sources are likely, those that are currently in the article are probably just short of the GNG lacking either independence or in depth coverage.  That would normally make my opinion a "week keep" at best, but given the other indicia of nobility (architecture nomination) and the subject (museum) I am comfortable opining straight "Keep" given that the pillar, WP:V is fully met and it's solely a question of the more flexible WP:N bar.  Eluchil404 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment  The presence of a ref tag, even the presence of multiple ref tags, doesn't flip the notability light on. While there are references now, which is good, I'm not convinced that significant coverage has been demonstrated here.  Two of the refs are to directories and one to a very brief (1 sentence) mention in a book.  There are some mentions of awards but only nominations.  If that's enough to demonstrate notability for architecture, please point us to the applicable Wikipedia guideline or project, that's not how it works for any other subject area.  Perhaps this doesn't meet speedy criteria but the same concerns expressed in the first AFD are here again in the 2nd AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2012‎
 * Comment: An article in the Institute of Civil Engineers proceedings and some coverage on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands website would appear to demonstrate notability without any doubt. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't be against a merge to Salburua if I was positive that would survive AfD. Not certain in its current state. RadioFan, you said this had the same concerns as the first one but the (valid) question that Vancouver raised in the first AfD has been referenced so how is it the same issues? The 1st incarnation was a copyvio google translate mess, I don't disagree there. What likely establishes its notability per WP:ORG - the importance to the city - is now sourced from multiple multi national sources. I'm not aware that it has to meet architecture guidelines as well. It's a relatively new building (2008) in a region where English is the 3rd language. That extensive  English sources haven't been located doesn't mean they don't exist which is why I flagged it for WP:Spain on recreation. This is an environmental building in a city that's an environmental capital in 2012 I am absolutely positive that more sources exist. StarM 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn - Thanks to the excellent additional sources that have been turned up, the article now appears to be acceptable in terms of supporting notability claims. I thus withdraw the nomination.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:16, 24 April 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.