Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guns in the sky


 * 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 Deleted prior to closure Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Guns in the sky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined PROD by author with no attempt to resolve PROD issues. PROD reason was "Non-notable team per WP:NSPORT. No significant reliable coverage." Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This is a non-notable team playing in a youth rec league. Not even close to meeting anything in WP:NSPORT. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Demonstrably non-notable and not meeting the guidelines at WP:NSPORT. However, it's certainly making a claim of significance, and there's nothing blatantly incredible about the claim, so I don't think A7 really applies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to ask just for my own knowledge, should a claim actually be backed up with some sort of source though? If that's the case, any article that has a claim of significance would be ineligible for A7 in that regard. I did a quick Google search for this team and found nothing related to them. Either way the article should be deleted, but I was just wondering about the whole "claim of significance" thing. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, my understanding of speedy delete is that if the article makes a credible claim of notability, sourced or not, the article isn't subject to speedy delete. Speedy delete is only for the most obvious deletions that wouldn't be contentious (ie: 99 out of 100 editors would agree).  AFD is for everything else.  The only real question is "is the claim credible".  I won't !vote in this one, but my guess is that the article wouldn't be eligible for speedy, but plenty reasonable for AFD.  Of course, now that I said that, some admin will speedy delete it ;)   Dennis Brown (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dennis has it right. The claim to notability does not have to be sourced in order for an article to pass A7. The question with this one is the "credible" bit. I considered declining the speedy myself but I'm a bit on the fence. The article is a little on the silly side, and if others feel the article's claims to significance aren't credible I'm not sure I disagree. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the claims of being professional and the claim that they changed the league I didn't think the A7 criteria really qualified. I prodded it to try for the lower bough on the deletion tree. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.