Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Madison Eagles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previously deleted twice as non-notable. Hasn't done anything since then to increase notability. Newest version different from deleted versions, so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Nikki ♥  311   19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  — Nikki  ♥  311   19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 - same as what I said for Jessie McKay. This is no different to changing "it's a fake" to "it is clearly an absolute totla fake". Nothing has changed - she's not notable.  !! Just a Punk !!  23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD does not apply, regardless of the subject's notability status. This version is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of either of the previous two versions. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is per what I said about the content being expanded. It's sending the exact same message. Additional - article was created by a user who also works for Shimmer. See Kacey Diamond. So this is also clearly a WP:COI issue.  !! Just a Punk !!  23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is per what I said about the content being expanded. It's sending the exact same message. Additional - article was created by a user who also works for Shimmer. See Kacey Diamond. So this is also clearly a WP:COI issue.  !! Just a Punk !!  23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhm, no, it's not. It's not the message it's sending that matters, it's the content itself which, as you said, has been expanded, thereby making it NOT "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", regardless of whether it's still sending the same message, a reasonable attempt at improvement was made, and WP:CSD does not apply. The COI is an unrelated matter. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I'll leave it at that.  !! Just a Punk !!  03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COI and not notable. Majority of article primarily sourced from a non notable promotion. RICK ME DOODLE   YOU DOODLE  02:13, 19 June 2010 (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.