Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. --Core desat  23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The White Rose Society (website)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, no references or sources. Previous AfD debates were plagued by canvassing and sockpuppetry, maybe things have subsided enough for a real discussion. RJASE1 Talk  16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Not notable. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Edison 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - and your sources for notability would be...? RJASE1 Talk  16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe it is notable, but there are problems asserting that notability. I spoke to BenBurch about adding a little to make the assertion better. He's a bit hesitant, because he might be accused of having a conflict of interest. I told him not to worry about that, and make a little bit of improvement. I believe that some of the content archived there cannot be founde elsewhere. Hopefully Ben will make some improvements shortly. Crockspot 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "some of the content archived there cannot be founde elsewhere" is a reason for deletion. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? It's my understanding that the material is archived with the permission of the copyright holders, who are generally notable people. I don't follow your logic. - Crockspot 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N defines notability as being the subject of secondary sources. Now, since the target of this AfD is this website (and not the subject contained therein), we must be able to establish that the website itself is the subject of multiple, reliable secondary sources for it to stay on Wikipedia.  For the life of me, I cannot find any other reliable references to this website.  The only hits on Google are the website itself and this Wikipedia article we are discussing.  In other words, it does not matter that the subject matter of this archive/website are notable and have given the website permission to archive their material.  This website must, by itself, be notable in order to satisfy the notability criteria.  L  uis  1972  (Talk  • My Contribs)  21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. L  uis  1972  (Talk  • My Contribs)  17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dino 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:WEB. Article makes no claims as to why the subject is notable and provides no sources. Nuttah68 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not assert any notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:43, 1 March 2007 (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.