Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurock

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurock

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the eight years since this article was created, many new links have become available. I have added several of them. Many more could be added, but the interested reader can quite easily discover them on his own. I fully understand how the availability of outside links can appear to equate to "notability" to a reader unfamiliar with the material, so I hope these additions satisfy the notability requirements.Rcarlberg (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't verify the assertions of the nomination. Since notability is defined outside Wikipedia, and notability is not a content guideline, there is not specifically a notability requirement that articles have sources. WP:Verifiability is a core content policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unscintillating, I'm struggling to understand your comment. Did you think I was saying it had to have sources to be notable? Certainly not, although as you say, verifiability is important. From the information in the article plus my own searches on the topic, I concluded that it didn't meet the notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE complicated by usage of the same name by a geological association using it for conferences in Europe, but there is a dearth of verifiable sources for this subject. No indication meets any notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (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.