Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunderland Message Board


 * 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. Remember this is not a vote. Petros471 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunderland Message Board
Seems to me like this message board is not notable. Author removed prod. You guys decide. Mattisse(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Talk page indicates it has been deleted and recreated previously, but I could not find any evidence of that. Mattisse(talk) 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was speedied earlier, when it had very little content. Fan-1967 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just having little content is not grounds for marking for speedy deletion - that's reserved for nonsense or vandalism as you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.74 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment You are misinformed. You may want to review the Speedy Deletion Categories. -- Fan-1967 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Speedy CSD7 would cover this club, especially if it had little content. Mattisse(talk) 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentBut it doesn't, because its importance/notability has been strongly asserted. If you dispute this, here is not the place to do it (refer back to CSD7)Cathd6 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - message boards are not generally notable. Outriggr 09:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentI suspect there's a misunderstanding of the nature of this group, which is a physical community, although its origins are virtual. Should be categorised under supporters' clubs rather than message boards.Cathd6 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria guideline. Thanks/wangi 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting to note that the article links to three news articles, however these are not what they initially seem. The first two do not refer to SMB at all, and the third refers to internet forums in general. Thanks/wangi 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe actual name is not mentioned in any of the articles but they are all as described - all originate from the SMB. A bit of research would establish that.Cathd6 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - one of the biggest football communities on the web, influential with Sunderland AFC and the local and national media (for full discussion of worth see article discussion where a convincing case has been made), and more importantly does not fall into any of the problem article categories in the deletion policyCathd6 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - SMB has helped a lot of good causes like 'give 4 strips'. just have a look at the charity board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.239.134 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09T15:17:55


 * Delete: Inconsistent Information. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.148.2 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-10T09:15:38


 * SMB is part of www.readgtogo.co.uk and therefore fans news site, this should not be deleted as it is very useful and has more power than SAFC.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.70.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:42:09


 * Keep - SMB has charital links and is in the same category as other supporters clubs forums on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.70.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:43:32


 * Keep - the SMB has made very large charitable donations throughout the UK and Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.92.203 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:03:12


 * KEEP - this is slightly more than your average message board. It has closer ties with its community and a greater influence over the club than most fans boards. Also, its charitable links, plus its ties with a published fanzine make it worthy of its place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaniardo (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15T16:41:40


 * 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.