Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Will Fail


 * 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. The "keep" position depended on the idea that the BBC article could function as a source even though it (perhaps by misattribution) didn't mention the website in question. That strikes me as flimsy; we really can't keep articles unless they're verifiable through reliable sources. Chick Bowen 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You Will Fail

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn website Mzlc 09:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Was quite widely reported at the time. Probably nn now, but possibly Redirect to Ken_Livingstone? EliminatorJR 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * merge with London Bombings article. The website is now more or less down, but the fact that it existed and was notable at the time requires specific mention. Notability is not lost over time. Shrumster 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember this being a phenomenon while it was up. I'd leave the article. It was certainly notable for a time. I've heard that it may come back up. In any case it seems wrong to delet it just bacause of a legal dispute, that doesn't diminish it's notability (and might increase it). 69.120.112.147 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn flash in the pan, footnote in 7/7 article now failing WP:V completely. Fails WP:WEB hard. Article claims notability with BBC report which has no mention of the site or its graphics. More evidence of failing WP:V. D Mac Con Uladh 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The graphic in the BBC article is from the site, just misattributed. AmbientArchitecture 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. And claiming that "it may come back up" smacks of crystal ballery to me. If sources can be found that are non-trivial mentions of the site and/or document the legal battle between the site's owner and Transport for London, then I'd reconsider. Caknuck 02:27, 25 February 2007 (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.