Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor League News


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Cel es tianpower háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor League News
spam ccwaters 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -Drdisque 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup Akerensky99 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a bloody vote. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree, what are you getting at here? What is this in response to? —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What debate is this? I count one pure vote ("cleanup"), a one-word nomination ("spam") and a half-vote ("per nom"). There's no debate, no attempt to even show this is non-notable. If a CNN staffer (for the sake of it, assume CNN is red) created a spammy article about CNN, I wouldn't AfD it -- I'd clean it up into a one-word stub if it appears notable. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, does this appear notable? Sometimes things obviously aren't, and there's no point having a "debate" then.  This article doesn't exactly compare with CNN.  If someone wants to assert the notability of this article, then we can start having a debate. —Cleared as filed. 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it didn't assert notability, it would have been speedied. Although on second thought, I think only biographies not asserting notability are speedieable. I think my point still stands, though. By default, anything on Wikipedia is notable enough for inclusion as per AGF. Nominating it on AfD means you should show in good faith why the article subject should not be included. There's not even an explanation of why this is considered spam. I've seen far spammier articles than this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is some history: User_talk:Ccwaters The author User:Mlnsports did nothing but create redundant categories involving minor league hockey for the sole purpose of linking back to his advertisement. ccwaters 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So why couldn't you have said that in the nomination in the first place? :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear WP:VSCA, as the author is Mlnsports.  Notability is contested. --Kinu 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original author's behavior is not grounds for deleting the article if it otherwise meets inclusion criteria. It appears to be a substantive resource covering a newsworthy/notable subject in greater scope/depth than any comparable web resource. Wikipedia devotes extensive space to commercial enterprises like Pokemon and interminable   displays of obsession with commercially successful but artisitcally insubstantial musical performers. Most of the "nonnotable" "votes" amount to little more than individual editors saying "I have no interest in the field and have never heard of the subject of the article"; those are not valid grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 20:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alexa ranking is 464,010... I don't know much about alexa.com, but I know some Wikipedians make reference to it, and 464,010 sounds like a relatively bad ranking... EdGl 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable site and advert/spam. MCB 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As non-notable, as well as advertisment. --Wingsandsword 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. -- Pierremenard 08:37, 10 February 2006 (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.