Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Liddell et al


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Team Liddell et al

 * Possibly non-notable. We have standards against the submission of geneolgical material itself but I don't think we have on genealogy groups. What would constitute "notability"? There are thousands of family name groups and websites alone. Rmhermen 18:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete before other groups get any ideas. Very large groups might be notable, but this one isn't. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reserved The article needs some pruning language-wise, and some of the insubstantial trive removed. I've tidied the introduction a bit, to give it the benefit. Alf melmac 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now. Just adding that the user who created the page has been writing notes to the Wikipedia populace in general over on the Help desk.  I don't think that the user has any idea about how to use talk pages.  I think it would be beneficial to have an admin try to contact the user since they seem lost and the discussion may lead to a better article. Dismas|(talk) 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable because of their ties to The Genographic Project. Dismas|(talk) 06:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Dismas. I would like to see more outside references cited in the article. DES (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.