Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ataria

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 Delete. There is a rough consensus that sources necessary to support an article have not (yet) been found. I will userfy the article to User:Star Mississippi/Ataria for improvement and sourcing as StarM has time. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ataria

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

I am unable to locate any reliable source coverage to establish notability for this interpretation centre. The article had previously been A7 speedied due to having no notability claims. The current recreated version of the article makes the claim that it is "one of the most important place of the Vitoria-Gasteiz's Green Ring." I am unable to verify that claim in any reliable sources (and not clear it really is a notability claim in any case) and find no other notability claims in the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think it's probably notable as many museums are, but English language sources are an issue. Seems to be known as "Ataria interpretive center" in some sources especially with Vitoria being named a Green Capital for 2012 but I'm having trouble finding anything that's not from a tourist site. I wonder if it's a new structire and therefore not yet notable? I'll try to find more sources and rewrite, which it will need if it's to stay StarM 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note it's a partial copyvio, see here. Not sure if it's enough to warrant a speedy. StarM 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI won't get to this this week , can closing admin please userfy this for me if it closes as delete? I'll see what I can do with it StarM 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. While it may suffer from non-english sources, still sources need to be found. Its a close paraphrase of the official page at best and a copyvio at worst. Should be deleted without prejudice towards recreation should sufficient sources be found. RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (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.