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. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Openpolitics.ca[edit]

Openpolitics.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). No sources. Savidan 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An interesting claim of notability, but one that is rather subjective so it needs a source. —dgies^t_c 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. google news archives indicates there is more content to add. John Vandenberg 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I click that link, I only get two articles - neither of which assert any notability. Are we getting different results? -Joshuapaquin 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per John Vandenberg. GreenJoe 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The claims to notability seem very exaggerated without sourcing. -Joshuapaquin 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of how the subject meets WP:WEB and no sources. The two Google News stories relate to the same incident, and one of those is a rather trivial mention. Nuttah68 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Chevinki 02:30, 11 March 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.