Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ski jumping World Cup accidents 2010-11


 * 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   Result was delete. A couple of keep/rewrite !voters appropriately noted that if adequate sources are available, the article could be kept even if those sources are not (yet) in the article. But no evidence that appropriate sources (e.g., meeting 70.80.234.163's or Jaque Hammer's concerns) exist has been provided. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

List of ski jumping World Cup accidents 2010-11
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )}

Because its unsorsed and very small and inneeded


 * Delete - article no good --Mirriam3333 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite I believe this article just requires references. Not deletion. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Of course this article is possible because they are reported, but too trivial.Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical keep Being "unsorsed" and "very small" are not grounds for deletion.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If sources are forthcoming, I'd say Keep. But not in the absence of those sources. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no source, no clear inclusion criterion (what constitutes a "bad accident"?), and no notability. Accidents happen in competitions, what makes these collectively notable enough to warrant their own article? Even if there were sources, what could be said that has encyclopedic value? It's just trivial news.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not worth of an article, accidents happen, when 1 or 2 are heavy it can have an own ariticle or being mentioned in the person article. Kante4 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (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.