Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomberblitz


 * 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. An argument for keeping arrived too late to be heard widely, but (1) that doesn't address the concern that this is an ad, and (2) based on the few comments afterwards, it seems to me unlikely that this would have changed the outcome. Mango juice talk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bomberblitz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed speedy. Assertion of notability ("...one of Australia's most important sporting websites and is well known in the Australian media") is not sourced. Their one claim to fame is a newspaper article describing how a newspaper was burned by using Bomberblitz as a source. That is one minor article, not sufficient in my opinion.Herostratus 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn fan site. Merge the exceptionally small proportion of text that's notable and sourced to Ricky Mott. --Dweller 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fan site and almost verging on advert Dep. Garcia ( Talk   + |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  ) 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, does not appear to pass WP:N. Moreoever, it's not verging on advert, it is an advert :) Moreschi Talk 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find one WP:RS, as noted on the talk page, but that's it. --Haemo 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a well known site in the media and was referenced on multiple occasions in newspapers and on TV Stations last year. It led a campaign against a new rule being brought in by the Australian Football League and was commented on by many, including Eddie McGuire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scmods (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - If the Australian Labor Party can have a Wiki so can Bomberblitz. Same can be said for MySpace.  The site is well known amongst the Australian Footballing community, just as MySpace is amongst the WWW.  The Media are aware this site exists and regularly quote from it, and base stories in both the Herald Sun and Age newspapers on information found at this site.  Deleting it achieves nothing. Mcmda 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)( user's only edit --Dweller 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) )


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn/talk 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, an ad for a non-notable website. Euryalus 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-notable fan site, largely unsourced, and written in a entirely unencyclopedic tone. The content suggests a breach of the guidelines on conflicts of interest and even if notable, none of the existing article is salvagable. -- Mattinbgn/talk 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. No secondary sources. Only incidental mention in reference source which only involved a "fan" from the website.Assize 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Quoting the site isn't enough, The Age has to write an article about the site. And then somebody else does too so there are two secondary sources.Garrie 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As it is, the article is not very good. However, there are some sources that could be used to write an encyclopedia article. . Capitalistroadster 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:WEB there is quite a high bar for websites and forums. TVAus, for example, was deleted last year for similar reasons even though it was regularly referred to in newspapers at that time and had considerable primary content as some of the show contestants posted on there. As for the ALP comment... well, a quick search of my state library reveals 615 references, about half of which are independent of the party itself. Bomberblitz returns "No entries found". Even Factiva, which references most Australian newspapers, can only find 3 mentions in the past year, none of which are about the website and all of which are in Melbourne. Orderinchaos 05:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is one of the better known AFL fan sites, but until secondary sources become available, no show.  &mdash;Moondyne 10:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this site has been included in Pandora Archive at the request of the State Library of Victoria. This site is of national significance.   This is of particular significance as the archive is predominately used to archive govt sites.  This is the first time I have seen a website of this nature in the archive. John Vandenberg 08:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's inclusion in Pandora is significant in the Australian context, but the key issue here is notability. And as noted there does not seem to be enough coverage in the press to justify the notability critera. Further to this, the site is generally unknown to those outside it's targeted group of interest. If no reasonable references can be found, then this article should be deleted per nom. Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO notability has been determined by the Vic govt and the archivists that have agreed to preserve this. Its inclusion in the archive means that we can absolutely 100% guarantee that in 100 years someone will be asking, "What is/was Bomberblitz?"  Anyway, I've added some refs. John Vandenberg 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Inclusion in the Pandora archive does not make it any more notable than any other item held in the collection of the national or state libraries in Australia. An item included in a library collection is not automatically notable and the Pandora archive is solely a way of preserving some websites the same way books are preserved, as an historical record. -- Mattinbgn/talk 10:24, 13 May 2007 (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.