Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Resources


 * 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel Resources

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the current article is beyond rescue, why would blowing it up and starting again produce a less biased article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Exactly what severe neutral point of view violations are in play here? I've read the article and I do not see anything that would warrant article deletion as a solution. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The first version was a copy/paste from some presentation materials of the company, but I believe it could be improved.Acornboy (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - most of this article, as well as all independent sources, deal with the mining project of Roșia Montană, which is the subject of another article, Roșia Montană Project.- Andrei (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Roșia Montană Project, merging as necessary - given Andrei Stroe's comment, this seems to be a logical outcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:04, 16 October 2013 (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.