Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanarium Bournemouth

Oceanarium Bournemouth

[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)

No evidence of any notability. Substantial COI editing with much puffery,. Sources are mostly own web-site plus a few very local which are probably press releases. Tagging for notability and inadequate sourcing has only encouraged more puffery and peacock text. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These seems to be reasonably independant, at least:[1][2][3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have edited the page to remove a lot of the puffery but believe their is a COI here and not currently enough independent, quality sources to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now decided to admit this article into the Diehard Article Hospital. I will add high-quality spurces and probably revamp it. I will replace/recreate the page when I consider the article ready for publishing. If you want to discuss this, please go to User talk:A diehard editor/Diehard Article Hospital/Oceanarium Bournemouth —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Draftify based on above. Currently I think the sourcing is just below the bar for notability. If the editor wants to have another go at finding better sources, then that's fine, but unless that happens within the next week, article should at least be moved out of mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]