Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Dda Gareth


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Dda Gareth

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability test. Closest that it can come to is use in schools, and no evidence or citation to demonstrate that. billinghurst (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article does cite a BBC review of the book so it's not a clearly non-notable. The article hasn't been tagged for references so it would seem to make more sense to give it time for improvement first. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tagged it for references. I also note that the review is in Welsh, so I am not sure that it can demonstrate significant notability for English Wikipedia.  The article is less than a stub as the reference is as long as the article, has progressed nowhere and there is no connection to an author page.  There has been no response here by the initial contributor. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - There is no restriction on the language for sources. English is preferred for the English Wikipedia, but that does not preclude the use of non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the reasons mentioned in my nomination. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - no need to state delete again. That's a given as you are the nominator and aren't doing this on procedural grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of notability, the coverage in the BBC review is not enough to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * very weak keep widely used textbooks are notable; but i cannot read the review, so I cannot tell if there is evidence for it. DGG (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Can someone give us a summary of the review in English? The BBC review is in Welsh (me thinks). VG &#x260E; 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * cy Wikipedia article doesn't have much more than the current en article.
 * Amazon UK sells the book, but doesn't have any reviews in English. . VG &#x260E; 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The BBC review review really takes it past WP:N; if only by the skin of its teeth. I see no reason to not follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D  12:34, 23 October 2008 (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.