Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeeKay-421 (2nd 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 no consensus. with

WP:NPASR. No further discussion took place despite another relist and as such, it's unclear whether Jclemens' !vote could have changed consensus. I cannot preclude that it could, so I'm closing this as no consensus. So Why 07:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TeeKay-421

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fanclub. There is very little to suggest notability (both for

WP:GNG). Last AfD mentioned press coverage in Dutch, but it seems pretty low-key. Still, I do get some hits like [1] and [2], so it seems borderline. From what I can make of the first article linked, through Google Translate, it seems based on the Wikipedia entry and/or a press release; this is hardly independent reporting or analysis of significance, just repetition of base facts from Wikipedia's article (probably copied from the club website and press releases). That may not be enough to make them encyclopedic. Would be nice to discuss it again, 8 years down the road. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing
WP:NORG and we have removed many more notable clubs before. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per
WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "one should generally avoid providing external links to *** Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Presumably the same holds for the fansite as the subject of an article. --Rpclod (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep While it's hard to evaluate sources not in any language I speak, it is clear that the organization's publication is regarded as a significant source and is quoted by English press. Combine that with everything else I can see in the Google News search above, it appears that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully enable a definitive consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.