Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillow Fight League (2nd 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   keep. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pillow Fight League
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Organization is non-notable organization referenced in single ESPN article; it masquerades as a "sports league"; and it was previously removed due to both nonsense and notability issues Mhking (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - By the time the article was nominated for AfD, it contained citations from ESPN, the New York Times, and Reuters. To so quickly dismiss it as non-notable at this time seems like a mistake. The event has garnered enough press to clearly alleviate the earlier concerns that the previous versions of the article (now restored and available in the history) were actually nonsense (although notability was a good deal more iffy at the time). MrZaius  talk  17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC) PS: 73 other news sources are also available at this time including multiple sources about the sale of television rights to reality TV producers.
 * Keep- It looks incredibly silly, but it does have several sources which indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: international reliable source coverage easily satisfies the general notability guideline of WP:N and WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with the rationale for the article being present. I feel that it is non-encyclopedic, and that your additions have not salvaged that notion. So despite your request that I remove my AfD, I will allow the AfD request to move forward. --Mhking (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - Just wanted to make sure you saw the intervening edits. MrZaius  talk  02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: As Umbralcorax said, it looks silly, but it also seems notable enough to warrant inclusion. jenuk1985 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be silly, but so's Al Gore (not POV there are sources :D) and he's notable too. (Irrelevant to AfD, but "damage a trois" is a great phrase). - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2009 (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.