Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients (3rd nomination)


 * 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The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients
Continued ask for proof of notability and while there are claims, they're not backed up by actual links. The sole claim to notability is that its in the title of a song that was (might still be) popular in finland. This hardly establishes any kind of world-wide notability, and is an unusual in itself. Even accepted as a source of notability, its a single source. Notability requires multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Previous AfDs consisted purely of WP:ILIKEIT statements, but this is a discussion not a vote, and the usefulness, age, number of google hits, etc is not being questioned. This is an AfD based on the notability and someone needs to be able to demonstrate the notability of this subject within the guidelines.--Crossmr 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn based on provided information--Crossmr 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Discussed by independent 3rd party reliable sources    JulesH 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Harvard crimson is an online edition of a student newspaper and not usable to establish notability. Gotfrag looks like a solid reference though, and techtree looks okay as well. It would have been nice these were provided during the months of asking for proof of notability.--Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. verifiable. Mukadderat 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability was never a question.--Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Don't mind my asking, but why do you send it to AfD (again) when it's already proposed for merging? Why not decide that first and then see if we need to send it to AfD? » byeee 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been marked for merge and notability for a long time.I nominated it for deletion because the question of notability has been a very old one that until now was never addressed. --Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is notable. comment added by DarthRahn(u/t\c) 18:04, 31
 * 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.