Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wartburg Watch


 * 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. Nakon 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wartburg Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. The article has several references, but these are all trivial mentions and/or links. StAnselm (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself had encountered and none of this is currently suggesting any better for the applicable notability.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The WP:GNG is met, as these independent RS'es use substantial material from the blog, even if they don't cover it, in and of itself, in significant detail.  And why would they? "Hey, there's this blog and there's all these details about it." is nonsense: blog title, author(s), and URL are about all you're ever going to get anyone to say about a blog, because that's about all you can say about a blog. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep inferior quality page, no links, and new, so I figured it was just another non-notable website being WP:PROMOted on Wikipedia.  Still, I searched  "Wartburg Watch" + Parsons  and "Wartburg Watch" + Martin  on a google news search and got RS that describe this blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep (declaration of interest - I created the page) - I would respectfully suggest WP:WEB and WP:GNG have been met, in particular references 6 and 7 are non-trivial. The above comment suggests there are more that could be added. SmilingFace (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Current references are all trivial with the possible exception of #7 with it's three sentences. #6 makes trivial mention of the blog in passing as it details the opinions of Dee Parsons.  If the most in-depth coverage is three sentences it's not notable. Gab4gab (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:46, 19 June 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.