Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetarian Wednesday


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian Wednesday

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

Non-notable website / meme; Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Outside award cited - website unavailable. Local newspaper coverage cited - link invalid. Even with the local news story, I would call that only trivial coverage. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete non-notable. a little   insignificant  20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of importance or significance and no reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Every source and external link referenced in the article is either to a blog or non-notable website, and after doing a Google search I can see why: that's all that comes up. Also, while the Google search initially shows 1,300 results (enough to conceivably contain at least one WP:RS), if you check to the end with similar results omitted, it's actually 178 results. Orbital Delegate (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge a stub to Environmental vegetarianism or Semi-vegetarianism. It was mentioned in an article in Singapore's Straits Times: "In the United States, a movement called Vegetarian Wednesday is slowly gathering steam as more people warm to the idea of abstaining from meat at least once a week.". Wherever it is merged to, we can also mention that the Belgian town of Ghent is going veggie on Thursdays: Fences and windows (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SilkTork  *YES! 13:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Relist to give people time to consider the reliable source found by Fences and windows, and to include it in the article if appropriate. While The Straits Times is Singapore's highest-selling paper, the topic is only mentioned in passing. However, added to the Straits Times source are multiple internet sources. The internet sources are more substantial, but by themselves are not reliable. However, it is the mix of multiple internet sources and a passing reference in a reliable source that needs to be discussed to get a fuller feel for consensus in this case.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this were somehow significant in the U.S., wouldn't U.S. papers have picked up on it rather than a Singaporean one only? Drawn Some (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2009 (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.