Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. No independent sources cited. Attention on facebook, blogs, etc, but no reliable sources. The article says "It has recently been recognized on Sky news" but gives no citation for that claim, and what does "recognized" mean? Does it mean it has been briefly mentioned in passing? That it has been given substantial coverage? Merely asserting that it has been "recognized" without clarification or verifiable citation tells us nothing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article needs to incorporate the following sources: CNN, Fox News, BBC, plus more. Please give the article more than a day, especially since it's the author's first article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An AfD normally runs for a week, which does give more than a day. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a talk page like this is discouraging. There's three separate deletion messages about the same article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete – Per Tetron76 (see below). There's already a Lying down game article, and the content of the duplicate isn't worth incorporating into the original article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. While I agree that the article currently looks pretty lame and undersourced, Michaeldsuarez' findings demonstrate the wisdom of WP:BEFORE: simple Google News searches demonstrate coverage in multiple RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the actual article for this activity. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree that those few brief mentions of rather minor events constitute substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it would pass notability but seems to be the same as Lying down game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Switching my !vote to delete. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:28, 25 March 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.