Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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The result was withdrawn.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Unsourced, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla about two years ago. The sources presented are dubious at best, and I feel the subject is unverifiable by reliable sources. The material in this article seems like original research. Google search doesn't bring up substantial sources. Wafulz 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep www.streetgangs.com seems to be an at least somewhat reliabel source. More and better sources ar highly desireable, of course. DES (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That source doesn't actually offer any information. It basically says "This is a gang, this is where they operate"-Wafulz 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's irrelevant how many sources for this article exist online, as the print sources are more than enough to justify an article. Look here [1]. Sometimes I think there's a prejudice on Wikipedia in favor of online sources and against print sources. For accuracy, I'll take a book or newspaper over a blog anyday. A blogger is nothing more than a guy with an opinion and an Internet connection. Qworty 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take those sources any day. Nobody is promoting weblogs. From the way this article is written, I assumed the article was about an overall gang rather than a neighbourhood.-Wafulz 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Walfulz, in view of those sources, does that mean you're withdrawing the nom. if they are added. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it. I think I might've misunderstood the original topic- it does need to be rewritten so it actually makes sense though.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 July 2007 (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.