Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beast Quake


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Beast Quake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not provide enough useful material beyond the seed article and merely references a single play from the game referenced in the seed article. Article creator keeps removing the delete tag and is the only source of any material on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.168.83 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - completed nomination for IP, who posted on WT:AfD. I am neutral for now but watching. Ansh666 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources demonstrate notability beyond routine coverage, and there are already enough details that a merge to a broader article such as 2010–11 NFL playoffs would be counterproductive. Melchoir (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it! Why shouldn't an amazing play like that get its own Wikipeida page? There's evidence this play caused a seismic event. I think that's worth a Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.98.75 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are reliable sources provided that extend beyond routine coverage (i.e., just a game recap), and the information provided is sufficient enough to warrant its own page. I'd also like to add that the nom's rationale that Melchoir (the creator) is the only one thats providing info is also invalid per WP:INVOLVE: just because one is editing doesn't make the page not notable; as long as reliable sources and notability is proven (which it has), everything is fine.  Zappa  O  Mati   00:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (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.