Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk for Values (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 delete. The delete camp has offered better arguments as to why the topic is not notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walk for Values[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

G11-able spam sourced entirely to in-house sources. A news-search for ("Walk for values" + Toronto) gives a single hit! ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WBG says, looks superficially well-sourced but turns out to all be primary, non-independent sources, and mostly the organisation's own website. I cannot find any sources that would meet our standards for a WP:RS. Hug^syrup 14:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in house sources??, Toronto star is quoted, as well as edmonton newspaper, you seem to use blanket statements and brush everything else under the table . obviously an agenda here as two sai baba sites are targeted. read the article and make an informed proposal. you cry and want to delete everything you dont like.
"our" standards?? lol you havent posted anything for several months yet make it look like you are an upstanding part of the wikipedia community...J929 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WBG 's friend comes to rescue to add strength in numbers, information is sourced from toronto, edmonton, NYC and new zealand... J929 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing cites from Toronto Star and/or Edmonton Journal? Please provide links. ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like it's historically significant. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The movement originated in Toronto but has expanded internationally. Looking beyond the first page of Google search results, I see coverage in lots of local Canadian newspapers (which may at first be mistaken for non-reliable sources) as well as newspapers from non-Canadian cites where walks were held - see [1], [2], [3], [4] (India), [5] (New Zealand), [6] (US), [7] (South Africa, very brief), [8] (another one from South Africa, although promotional).
The subject is also briefly covered in this book. I think there is enough to meet GNG. SD0001 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Maybe, but coverage in one book doesn't make it notable. If this article were created post-WP-NPR, it wouldn't have been marked as 'reviewed' and would've been tagged for deletion. It may have notability, potentially, but as written, it isn't even close. I vote that it should be deleted, without prejudice to re-creation. If someone wants to recreate it, let it go through WP-NPR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs)

There's a promotional mini-news-piece in the newspaper of a town-suburb, a spam-piece from a paper covering the second-largest town of a province, sources failing NEWSORG and hence RS, coverage over a student-daily blah blah ..... The book is a memoir, out of a non-reputed press and a non-reputed author ....∯WBG^converse 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, Agree. I think we should be delete-ing this article. If it's noteworthy enough someone feels the need to re-create it, with neutrality and WP:RS, then have it go through the New Page Review process.Doug Mehus (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ,Doug Mehus and WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (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.