Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cidal Squad


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cidal Squad
About a group of posters on an internet forum. Violation of wp:vain, all google hits are just the forum it is based off of. Burgwerworldz 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  NN group.  Dionyseus 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this piffle. -- Hoary 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: 21 internet buddies on a forum, I think, are pretty NN. Plus, the grammar. It buuuurns. --bī-RŌ 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patently not-notable. Not even an assertion of notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tries to assert notability through Wikipedia, as in the line Wikipedia, let us have our glory --Wafulz 16:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Previously posted as The -Cidal Squad, though I'm altogether too coffeed to check throughoulty whether or not this qualifies as db-repost. I think it still pretty much qualifies as A7. I'm not opposed to having this deletion debate up for a few moments, just to gauge how non-notable this group exactly is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP-why does this matter so much to you guys? It is just a harmless article about a group that made a pretty big impact on a message-forum that is no where near small. I will edit the grammar.--Andy_duke
 * Because we have to subject all articles to the same sort of standards. We regrettably have a some bar of inclusion and in order to keep the encyclopedia maintainable we have to separate wheat from chaff. The article may be "harmless" as in "doesn't need much server resources from Wikipedia", but it fails to tell how notable the group is, and doesn't help a lot in regards of verifiability either. If you look around, you'll see that most articles about groups are backed by telling why should we really care about them, and sources that tell exactly why should we really care about them. So, can you back things up with some published sources? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:00, 24 August 2006 (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.