Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukon Yahoo


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yukon Yahoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub article that lacks notability and sufficient references. Astros4477 ( talk ) 05:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article meets credibility, written by industry professional, will find more sources later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: There is a citation from the Chicago Tribune that gives a credible citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. "I wrote it" is not a valid reason to keep. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still not notable though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently, the article has one reliable source (needs multiple) and the coverage is not substantial. While the source proves it exists, the pebble stuck in the treads of my sneaker exists too. Neither one is notable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - Before you shoot your mouth off about deleting a page, why don't you bother to do a simple Google News Archive search. Pages of materials proving notability come up from major newspapers. I doubt the pebble in your shoe has coverage in major newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.28.161 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.28.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I did search. I did not find substantial coverage. If you did -- and if that is the reason for your "keep" !vote, please give us links to the substantial coverage you found. I have nothing. My !vote stands. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote per Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep : The subject is more than notable, and as mentioned in the article, there are sources to back up the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — 108.17.102.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - As I said to the previous IP, if you found substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, please give us links to the substantial coverage you found. I have nothing. My !vote stands. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote per Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Anton Schwarzkopf if reliable sources exist documenting that he designed this particular roller coaster. There is a already a list there quite suited for the purpose. The reference given does not imply notability, nor are the references I found searching, nor have any other such references been given. הסרפד  (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, the subject does not appear to meet several criteria to exist as a standalone article. However, it is worth mentioning that the guideline also states, "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article". So at least in that respect, it may still be notable enough to be included in the Anton Schwarzkopf article, assuming at least one reference can be cited. But as a standalone article? Not so much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  Yash [talk] 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not seem to me to meet the spirit of the notability guidelines, even though it might technically be allowable. The ride is closed, which leads me to believe that additional sources being added in future would be unlikely.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 19:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - An article on the generic form of this ride exists, and unless something appears explaining why this individual version is notable enough to merit its own article, it shouldn't have one. -- McDoob  AU  93  06:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Article is notable, Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, not banishing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.29.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Stating an article is notable does not demonstrate it is notable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote per Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (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.