Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/500 (ball game)


 * 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   keep. TerriersFan's edits have rather mooted the complaints of both the nominator and User:Curb Chain. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

500 (ball game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not remotely notable. No sources. (Article was proposed for deletion, the reason given being "Unreferenced, no indication of notability and not likely to ever gain any." The PROD was removed by the author of the article without comment.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not useful article.   The nomination was not done correctly because the article's deletion template does not link here It links here, but the color of the link is red. Curb Chain (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is usually, if not always, the way with a newly created AfD. The link turns red when the article's cache is renewed. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guess it is a bug then? Can someone report that to bugzilla?Curb Chain (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment article could use a more notable reference. I just added one reference and a reference section to improve it slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - Have we lost all our sense of fun on Wikipedia? With harmless pages such as this one, that has been created less than a month ago, why not give it a bit of time to see if more sources can be found? The title of the subject, '500', makes a search for sources particularly difficult. Anyway, I have done further work on the page.TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.