Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark baiting


 * 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. The only valid deletion rationale that have been raised during this debate is reference to notability by the nominator. No other editors who have commented have agreed with that assessment. Being a stub or the fact that it has not been edited or expanded in 3 years is ground for improvement, not deletion under our deletion policy. As stated in WP:LR, "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". Only after sufficient time are given after the link is noted to be dead and effort made to track down alternative sources do we consider a piece of information to be unverified. This closure does not proclude anyone from nominating the article to be merged to another article if they believe that is an appropriate course of action. -- KTC (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Shark baiting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has not been touched in 3 years, had one source which is now a dead link and is merely two sentences long. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Antoshi ☏ ★  23:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A Gsearch reveals that this actually appears to be a real activity, but some sources would really help.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Shark. I found some kind-of-reliable sources (, from first page of Google), and also noticed that an alternate term for this is "shark feeding", though that's not a good search term because of "shark feeding frenzy". Ansh666 07:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- no valid grounds for deletion in nomination Not edited in 3 years is not a valid grounds for deletion, dead links are not a valid grounds for deletion, and "merely two sentences" just means it is a stub, not a valid grounds for deletion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Comment: The article clearly fails the general notability guideline and falls under reason #8 in the reasons for deletion: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." The fact that nobody has put out enough effort to make this article and its subject in 3 years and has zero sources makes it a clear candidate for deletion. It's a nothing article with almost no content; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, not until someone can establish notability and cite sources. Antoshi ☏ ★  15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not a mind-reader; that's not in your nomination for deletion, "This article has not been touched in 3 years, had one source which is now a dead link and is merely two sentences long. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Antoshi 23:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" Feel free to renominate with a valid grounds for deletion. While you again assert that not editing for three years makes it a "clear candidate for deletion," and that stubs are candidates for deletion, that simply is not Wikipedia policy. Also, unsourced non-BLPs are not "clear candidates for deletion." So far you still haven't used any valid grounds for deletion in your actual nomination. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so combative at me over this. All I'm trying to do is make Wikipedia a bit more tidy. "Not edited in 3 years" is not my only argument as you keep bringing up. All that needs to be known is it's a source-less, nothing article that, yes, hasn't been touched in forever. You may not think it's grounds for deletion, but that's up to the administrator that has the final word to decide. Antoshi ☏ ★  17:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite; the administrator or other person who closes the AFD goes by community consensus, which can be found in the guidelines I linked to above. I mentioned all three of your arguments as not being valid grounds for deletion; they aren't part of the community consensus for why an article should be deleted. It's not a battle. It's just information. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * AfD's are not decided by "votes." Whether a keep or delete, etc. opinion is rendered is irrelevant. AfD's are resolved by the facts presented by the editors taking part in the AfD discussion and then decided upon by the administrator who has the final say whether to keep, delete, merge, whatever. As far as I can see, there's no reason to keep this article if there's no improvements made to it before the AfD is resolved. Antoshi ☏ ★  18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about votes? If the article can be improved, the course of action that benefits the encyclopedia is to improve it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * It benefits the encyclopedia if it can establish notability with enough reliable sources. If it cannot do that, it does not need an article until such a time it can. Antoshi ☏ ★  23:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with this nomination, and I !voted keep. Ansh666 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Being unspeakably abysmal is no reason for deletion, this is a notable commercial pursuit and this is the common name for it. HERE is one web piece on the topic, from an ultra-fast Google search. If Article Rescue Squadron still had alert flags, I would hang one here and see what happens. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2013 (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.