Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debunkify


 * 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The result was keep, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Debunkify

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Well, there's  in AdWeek and  in PRWeek.  I'm not sure about the notability, but it got non-local coverage.  If it exists, maybe local Ohio sources could be used to flesh it out beyond these sources.  The problem is that I'm not really finding much.  There's  in The Lima News and another hit listed in the article, but I was expecting more.  I'm curious what others think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG on a weak basis. Source examples include:, , , . There's also coverage in college newspapers: , , but these latter types of sources are not typically used to establish notability. North America1000 04:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I guess there's enough coverage to at least make it debatable, though I think college newspapers would have to be scrutinized before being used as a reliable source.  I generally disregard them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination for all comments above. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 24 January 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.