Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome Ocean


 * 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome Ocean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The issue with this organization is it's notability and the quaity of it's sources. One (Yahoo) is a mirror of the other source (takepart), the other (Orlando Sentinel) is a passing mention. Other than it's own website, this leaves the. In all fails WP:NCORP. Donnie Park (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister   talk  00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there is more coverage available:   . I'm undecided whether this is sufficient for a standalone article or whether it should be merged into Seaworld which is the natural place for it, but might be controversial since they deny any role in the site beyond providing initial funding. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The links make it seem that it's all about SeaWorld, less of the blog; therefore I wouldn't be surprised if it get merged considering the notability of the group is overshadowed by the theme park. Donnie Park (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep inline sources provided shows this is clearly notable. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't be rescued from its WP:POV. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Poor sourcing and questionable notability. Also, isn't written in an NPOV. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  11:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete— I don't see poor sourcing and NPOV issues as reasons for wholesale deletion, but the lack of strong coverage, even taking in Donnie's finds above, lead me to believe it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:34, 26 April 2016 (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.