Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gallowgate


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Note that recommendations of unregistered and/or very new users are generally discounted in AFDs. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gallowgate
This is an article about an online fanzine and webforum community which does not appear to make any claim of notability. It might be a borderline A7 (unremarkable group/vanity page) but I felt it would be best to bring this before WP:AFD for consensus. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) everybody is picking on me celticghirl7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.184.188 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete per nom and WP:WEB [CSCWEM pretends not to want to use those new admin tools, but in a few weeks he'll be speedying like crazy :) ]. Joe 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite or delete Right now it's just a vanity list of members of the website. If it were rewritten to explain why this website is notable then it could maybe stay. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More description about the purposes of the site and the community has been added for this new and prosperous organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seanmwalsh10 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an online community and has many remarkable people on this site. You could say The Beatles were unremarkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.137 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep :: Celtic FC are notable, and IMHO this appears to be a major on-line presence of their fandom. -- Simon Cursitor 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP If celtic fc and is fans are not notable then please tell me a club that is worthy of non deletion on this site,remember GLASGOW CELTIC started the ball rolling when it comes to brittish clubs winning the EUROPEAN CUP and as for those unremarkable fans that use this forum these are the same fans that haver won awards for taking over one hundred thousand fans to seville with no problems whatsoever,as for the forum they do say nothing is intersting unless your interested in it obviously the decision makers on wilkipedia arent interested in celtic or a forum dedicated to its history and fans but im sure worldwide their are celtic and football fans who are and i thin k personally it would be an act of folly to delete this as this club its forums and it affiliates have a great following.As for the comments of mr owen below i fear anybody who spells THE BHOYS with a Z isnt all they seem and could well be a sheep in wolves clothing,as for celtic websites being equally noted if it wasnt for the fan base that celtic has around the world then their would not be anything notable anout celtic so shame on you for suggesting that celtic are bigger than the fans who put them where they are now, all inclusive is what celtic are. paul......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.133.178.161 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Under no circumstances should Glasgow Celtic be deleted.  Oh, what? ... that's not the question?  Delete the Gallowgate, and shame on you for trying to suggest that your webzine and the Bhoyz are in any sense equally notable.  -- GWO

Tell me, if this entry is deleted then how come other fanzines such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_follow are allowed to exist even when that site was shut down by the police for displaying pictures of catholics being hung and mocked? -- Sean Walsh


 * That article is about the song. The fanzine is a footnote. -- GWO

Yes, a song that just so has sectarian verses in......

Equaly look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Monster_Trucks which is a much smaller fazine, less active and for a far smaller club


 * Comment I'd just like to say that vandalism of my user page is certainly not a convincing way to get me to change my vote and it reflects poorly on the community of The Gallowgate. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment How can you be sure that the vandalism originated from the good members of The Gallowgate and not other groups that have persisted since our creation to cause havoc on our board - both childish Celtic fans and ignorant Rangers fans. It seems to be me that by vandalising your page they are getting a perfect opportunity to make it look like we are not a respectable message board. What needs to be done for this article for it to be judged acceptable for WikiPedia? --Sean Walsh


 * CommentBelow are the rules of importance and underneath each is how they meet the criteria of importance:

" article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

The site in question has well over 1,000 members who have taken time to register it is also well know in circles of people involved in Celtic FC.

"It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject."

It has been added to over the past day and is over 2000 words now. That is longer than what would be described as a stub.

"Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance. If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

of insufficient importance, fame or relevance currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article."

It is important as has been shown above by myself and therefore meets criteria set by Wikipedia so should cause no problems to the site

- 3CS. Member of the GG
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.196.2 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the more important criteria can be found under WP:WEB. As is stated there: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section."  If you can present evidence that it meets one of those points there then it should be able to stay.  Also, about the vandal, the reason I assume it came from The Gallowgate is because the same user added information about specific users to the article.  If the user was a rival of the site you would think the information would be vandalism. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read the information on the subject matter i see no reason to delete THE GALLOWGATE as it seems to me to be informing me off a website relating to celtic and also an area of glasgow with historic value and i very much enjoyed reading about lord haw haw as i have an interest in WW2 history as for this word vandal being thrown about i think that is just nit picking as its not as if its real vandalism like graffitti in the bronx that is stubborn to move and costs manpower to clean up,all you do on here is delete it,quite simple really and maybe some people take things to serious in life and therefore should just chill out a tad.im sure we all know the importance of being PC but to go overboard about a few typed words is utterly astonishing. lestat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment However that still does not change the fact that the article does not proove its claims. Please see Verifiability.  Of course vandalism on the Wikipedia is different than vandalism in real life.  Please see Vandalism for what is considered vandalism on the Wikipedia. Also, the story about LORD HAW HAW, if it is true, has nothing to do with the website.  That story is about the street the website is named after and should most likely go in a separate article. With the recently added information this article is about two separate subjects.  It needs to choose one, and that one still needs to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I only have your word on the vandalism issue but maybe you could elaborate on it was it explicit or maybe just an observation or opinion on the information available on your user page,do you actually work for WIKIPEDIA and if not i cant understand why you are relentlessly pursuing this issue.I also agree that some of the material may not be relevent to the uneducated but to anybody in the extended celtic family around the world ex pats and suchlike any information about the gallowgate,celtic and the history of the area is welcomed with open arms,im afraid you can quote the rules all night if you feel you must that is your right to do so anat the risk of repeating myself you realy dont know the history as for lord haw haw i can assure you that if you take the time to delve into the history archives you will probably find out that the in formation posted by theuser is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the edit history for User:81.133.178.161 for an example of the vandalism connected to an IP address that also 'commented' on this same page. In fact, that IP address has only edited about this issue. Shenme 12:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a vanity page to satisfy lots of egos, but only notable to those egos. Shenme 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, failing WP:WEB; unencyclopedic.  Bucketsofg 22:31, 14 April 2006 (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.