Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonny and tanya


 * 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. --Core desat 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tonny and tanya

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable couple that are so-called "stars" of a web forum about Manchester United, perhaps better known for web-streamed sex shows. No independent sources to speak of, no verification, no way this article should stay. Contested prod. Realkyhick 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in any way, no verifiable sources found Recurring dreams 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability, no reliable sources. --Targeman 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be left open, they will be minor celebrities before long - long may they last! (a scouser) Two of the biggest stars in their field with many thousands of supporters in the european arena
 * The Article is in the process of getting fixed, please give ample time to fix it. --ryanovski 20:09, 2 August 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think the problem is the writing of the article (though it needs some work). The subjects simply aren't notable by standards, and the best writing in the world won't fix that. Sorry. I'm still a Yank that loves Man U, though. Realkyhick 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are on the rise. you cant knock talents that are up and coming! ryanovski 22:20, 2 August 2007 (CST)
 * Uh, yeah, we can. Realkyhick 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. When they become minor celebrities, there might be a case to re-create the article, but certainly not before then. It's questionable whether every "minor" celebrity deserves an entry anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And the sources showing this are where, exactly? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. In Manchester, Tonny and Tanya are well knownand respected figures. As it says in the article, fans have sung about themat games. I don't know how to prove that, but if you were to ask any Mancunian Manchester United fan, they would back this up. Vaz21 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user previously created an article by this name, which was speedy deleted, and then temporarily blocked for activity regarding that previous version. Realkyhick 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think thats irrelevent now. Vaz21 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article must stay. I am sure that Robert Tressell was considered insignificant at one time. I have heard their names sung by thousands. As the football season unfolds their noteriety will rise exponentially untill Tonny and Tanya take their rightful place as king and queen of Manchester. — Stured (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete unnotable and technically a BLP violation (unsourced and possibly controversial) Will (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki mods, have it in your hearts to keep this page.. Vaz21 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. I live in Manchester too, and I've never heard of these people, thank God; Association Football fans will sing about any old rubbish, and if these comments are even true, this just shows it. Lordrosemount 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you a football fan though Lordrosemount? Evidently not!
 * You think? Even if I was, I'd still call this nonsense (and I wouldn't sing songs about a couple of porn stars, or whatever the hell these people are). Lordrosemount 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he's a football fan is irrelevant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do the mods care about this one page? There's so many pages on Wiki and many are about pointless things, why don't you let this one go? It's obvious Tonny and Tanya are well-known due to the amount of external links provided and information given. Find it deep in your hearts to leave this page. Thank you.
 * In answer to your question, someone happens to have found this page and argues (based on policy, consensus and guidelines) that these two are not notable. I quite agree that there are pages on Wikipedia about "pointless things". If you think some of them aren't notable, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion as well. In terms of what the information given means, it doesn't establish notability, which is different to being well known. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And as for those other pages — we're getting to them. :-) Realkyhick 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This page has been here so long now it should be left. It is no harm to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.182.182 (talk)
 * It was posted August 2. You call that long? What are you smoking? You didn't even sign in. I smell sockpuppetry here. Realkyhick 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - quite simply no reliable sources. -- Whpq 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It really isnt that bad. Its better than some of the other articles out there and it has more sources, categories, attention than alot of the other ones... so give it a break eh? Ryanovski 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are worse articles out there, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion. The fact that there are worse articles out there doesn't mean that this one should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Red Card (Delete) - Nothing in this article leads me to believe that are notable. The only references are MySpace WP:YMINAR, YouTube and Forums. These are all user driven and do not constitute a reliable, verifiable third party source. A friend of mine thinks they are plants or spies from Arsenal or Chelsea. Helmsb 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a user drive source... so then it must not be reliable? Ryanovski 02:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly different situation. The point about Wikipedia is that it's a user-created thing, but based (or at least intended to be based) on reliable sources which are not user-created. The addition of information stemming purely from user-created websites most definitely renders an article or a fact less than reliable. That, oddly enough, is why this article - based as it is purely on user-created sources - is being nominated for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

--Eivind Kjørstad 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Never heard of them, and they're supposed to be "famous" former residents of my hometown.
 * 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.