Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veta La Palma


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Veta La Palma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about a non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The Time article already in the article as an external link is substantial coverage from a reliable source, as (so far as I can judge) is this article from El Mundo. And there are plenty of other GNews hits, though it probably needs someone with better Spanish than I have to sort out which of them are reliable. The article is definitely rather over-promotional at the moment, and badly needs in-line citations but, when the subject is notable, these are editing issues, not reasons for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nontrivial coverage in Time Magazine, El Mundo, and Al-Jazeera alone is enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, which states that "[e]vidence of attention by international or national [...] media is a strong indication of notability". Seems also to have been discussed (albeit briefly, and usually as the site of an investigation) in several books, e. g., 1, 2, and numerous scholarly articles, e. g., 1, 2, 3. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. For starters, see, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 17:27, 11 January 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.