Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance LARP


 * 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Alliance LARP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wholly non-notable organization - only claim of importance is uncited, and a proper ref cannot be found. This was a deleted PROD that should have stayed deleted ES  &#38;L  08:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep While I freely there are insufficient sources to maintain the article as it stands, Alliance is notable enough that I'd heard about it, as being large, as someone with connections to LRP in the UK. May be rescuable. SPACKlick (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow up to say I've found a couple of sources which support some level of Notability, if only among LARPers and put them on the article's talkpage SPACKlick (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Boston Globe is definitely a reliable source. The LARPer probably isn't (linkrotted as well).  Notable within the community is almost the opposite of what's wanted - but the Google Books link SPACKlick added to the talk page is just enough to put it onto the Keep side IMO. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont have access to the full article, but the preview does not actually mention Alliance LARP and even if it did, nothing in the preview suggests significance. What is the significant coverage from the Globe that can be included in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Neonchameleon. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this was recently undeleted after this discussion. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete A single reference from a reliable source does not notability make. We need "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" (my emphasis). ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the article is not even about its purported subject, regardless of the lack of references. Maproom (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple articles and videos, from multiple sources, speaking of this organization. Here are some of them: A video from the Chaska Herald, an article referencing an exhibit at The Soap Factory in Minneapolis featuring Alliance LARP , Examiner.com's feature on Alliance LARP , ConventionScene.com detailing Alliance LARP's appearance at Wizard World Philadelphia 2013 , a convention called Geek Out! in North Carolina, featuring Alliance LARP's Crossroads chapter , an interview with the owner of Alliance LARP Denver Brujah7783 (talk)
 * while you have presented a bunch of links, they do not meet what is required for a subject to have a stand alone article - that they are reliably published AND independent of the subject AND cover the subject in a significant manner. - all three things from the same source - you may have significant coverage, but it is not a reliably published source, or significant coverage, but the source is closly tied to A LARP, etc. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia's policies ask that we request an undeletion if a page already exists but has been previously deleted. The page has only been undeleted barely a week. Please allow us an appropriate length of time to correct the issues with the page before discussing its re-removal?97.93.28.236 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)SDzeima
 * you should have kept it in someones sandbox and fixed the sourcing issues first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are a couple of reliable sources that exist, but they lack significant coverage. There are plenty of non-reliable sources with significant coverage, but no reliable sources with significant coverage, which is the most basic requirement to meeting WP:GNG. That the page has "only been undeleted barely a week" is not cause to keep the article. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Wikipedia it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is.  This article does not meet any of the notability guidelines and doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (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.