Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique Performance Volleyball


 * 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD. Rudget  (Help?) 12:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unique Performance Volleyball

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Ok, feel free to delete the article. I was under the assumption that by writing an article about a not-for-profit youth organization, and detailing facts about that organization was within the scope of wiklipedia. Instead of outright saying DELETE! Why don't editors delete the on-factual or promotional wording that they say exists? Isn't this the fundamental idea of wikipedia? The article in question is regarding a youth organization with over 50 members that operates as a not-for profit. I welcome anyone to post documented negative information on the club or organization. Yes it has a postive undertone, but that is because the information available from relevant sources is positive as of today. Someone with more experince please comment on the basics of how wiki editors operate. Is it standard protocol to suggest outright deletion, or do most editors delete the non-relevant data?CoachSutton (talk) 10:49, 02 June 2008 (UTC)

This article was created by a person with a conflict of interest. The subject doesn't appear to me to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "This article includes references for all details given. This article is to serve as public information to allow youth to find our not-for-profit club." References do exist, but do not appear to meet the reliable sources guidelines. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant spam. If actual nontrivial coverage of this club exists, and the article can be rewritten without all the puffery, then let's keep that article.  But this content as it exists today is not something we can use.  The author may want to review WP:CORP for guidelines on articles about companies.  Friday (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. Townlake (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Since Cryptic removed the Speedy tag (not sure why), next problem is WP:N failure. Townlake (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as rotting spam. RFerreira (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That article is eligible for speedy deletion as blatant advertising which only promotes an entity and requires a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite if information can be found from reliable sources, kill it otherwise. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (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.