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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panteras[edit]

Panteras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

According to WP:ORG, "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This article lacks significant coverage in many secondary sources, and as a result, fails WP:ORG. Just because the team has won many local awards does not mean that the team is notable enough to merit its own article. —mc10 (t/c) 01:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://panteras.up.edu.mx/jrfll.html, http://panteras.up.edu.mx/fll.html, http://panteras.up.edu.mx/team.html, and http://panteras.up.edu.mx/home.html. Article so tagged. Goodvac (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may notice that those pages actually are licensed with a creative commons license, so the stuff here is not techniclly a copyright violation, however the license is unsuitable for Wikipedia because it has ND and NC on it. I am checking if it really is a copy. . . . . It is actually different enough not to be an infringement as a whole. There may be some bits that should be removed or changed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's just CC-BY-NC. There's no ND. —mc10 (t/c) 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unclear whether this is a copyvio, but the article doesn't cite substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, as would be required by WP:GNG.  Sandstein  19:49, 26 April 2011 (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.