Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the pavilion


 * 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   speedy delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From the pavilion
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/From The Pavilion
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This website may not be notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The article contains descriptions of the website contents that may not be of interest to a general user of wikipedia. The website is at least partly commercial, raising the possibility that this article functions as an advertisement. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional: See User talk:Sully89 for more info. This article has been speedily deleted three times on 6 June 2008, deleted after this AfD on 15 June, and speedily deleted when it was a redirect on 17 June. The article has had alternative capitalization in the past. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Still sign up to the site here: www.fromthepavilion.org <--- heppa :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.188.157 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article doesnt function as an advertisment, as membership is mentioned but not advertised. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) it says that to determine notability, content must be provided that is not an advertisment or press release for the website, i have provided content that is neither of those, yet proves FTPs notability. And, as the talk page shows, it is just like any other article on Hattrick or Footstar. Sully89 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And in regards to the speedy deletions in june, that was before the website had articles written about it, so it had no credible sources. It now does, so those speedy deletions arent really a precedent. Sully89 (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4/G11) and salt (and also salt From the Pavilion) — blatant recreation of deleted material, which is starting to become, in my opinion, disruptive in nature. This also arguably spamming. I also claim that nothing notability-wise as improved from several months ago; the reference links are either dead or provide no significant coverage as required in the general notability guideline. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy G4. Recreation of content that fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The creator is more or less a SPA and perhaps suffers from COI. S/he needs to be seriously warned about repeated recreation of such deleted content and next recreation, barring some major improvement, should invite some sort of administrative action. LeaveSleaves talk 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears on the surface to be a score tracking system for watching Cricket, but appears to be more of a fantasy cricket game.  Speedy G4 does not apply, as per the logs, the only two times the article was deleted was when it was speedy A7'd - it has never been through AFD to my knowledge, so unless somebody can find the link to the dead articles, that remains.  G11 is a maybe. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Old AfD mentioned above and also on creator's talk page. LeaveSleaves talk 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, good enough for me. G4 it is, so tagged. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (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.