Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year of the Dolphin


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nom. --NMChico24 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Year of the Dolphin

 * — (View AfD)

Little context, little upon which to expand. NMChico24 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: We have several other UN "Years", and this can be improved/expanded. GhostPirate 01:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can definitely be expanded.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep other international years articles exist with reliable sources to support their encyclopedic value; there's not reason why this article cannot also, once appropriate references are cited. (aeropagitica) 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please help me out to keep this article. I do not know what to do to save this entry. I started this lemma just minutes ago and was buissy with editing as someone already want it for deletion.
 * 2007 has been recognised as an official UN Year of the Dolphins and has only began today and therefore there is not much information available yet for the moment; just some basic facts. As the year will be continuing, international organisations, countries, media etc. will organise activities or pay attantion to it. So then thereafter there will be more possibilities to write and adjust this lemma in Wikipedia. - (Brabo 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Brabo, I wouldn't worry quite so much -- the consensus so far is universally "keep" except for the nominator. I think that if you found some third-party independent references such as articles in major newspapers (preferably linkable) that there would be no real objection. That said, I'll do some cleanup to bring the article more in line with house style. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above statements. JRHorse 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all above support reasons. Certainly got interested in it myself, in light of recent Yangtze river Dolphin extinctions. ThuranX 05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems plenty of room for this to expand. I'm not sure that the title is the best possible one, but plenty of material to work with I think.  Lankiveil 11:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep Metamagician3000 13:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs lots of expansion. If an article is short and it asserts notability, it does not qualify for AFD. Terence Ong 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keepy Nominator does not specify a valid reason for deletion. Tarinth 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. ← A NAS  Talk? 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per above comments. --Sir James Paul 21:00, 1 January 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.