| Revision as of 05:05, 20 June 2008 editRenamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc (talk | contribs)37,368 edits Response to Ninasimonejr← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:15, 20 June 2008 edit undoBucs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,140 edits →PUMA PacNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- --/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- --/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- --/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- --/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Weak delete''' it seems fairly notable at the moment but probably won't be in six mounths time. ] (]) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:15, 20 June 2008
PUMA Pac
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete While there seem to be a few notable media references to them (1 2 3 4) it seems extremely bursty and limited, and I do not believe there is enough out there to make an encyclopedic article. The article as it is looks almost like it would violate WP:NOT#WEBHOST. --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Care needs to be taken that a decision to delete is nonpartisan. Huge public interest in the nomination/election, including the response of Clinton supporters to Obama's apparent nomination, should be reason enough to keep it, IMO. Note that the article has already been edited (seemingly by a hostile party) to provide wrong info. But if it is deleted for legitimate Wiki reasons, OK. Ninasimonejr (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, maintaining a neutral point of view is one of the most important principles of Misplaced Pages. If you'll read the nominator's comment and my own above, you'll notice that our main gripe with the article is its lack of notability as it pertains to organizations, as established by reliable sources. If you can establish such notability, I encourage you to be bold(!) and fix the article. I'd gladly change my above "weak delete" into a "keep" if such sources can be produced and introduced into the article. --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete it seems fairly notable at the moment but probably won't be in six mounths time. Buc (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)