Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 03:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable kid's team. No path to mainspace Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, many news ghits, a significant organisation, it is quite plausibly notable and suitable for sandboxing.  On the "non-notable" claim, the nominator should re-read the well participated Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58 where he was unanimously disagreed with.  Ignoring that thread and continuing to nominate per "non-notable" is disruption.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That RfC is worded in a way that guarentees the desired result and not as applicable as some would like it to be. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear: you were unanimously disagreed with. A more plausible assumption is that your views (applying notability to drafts) are wrong, and that any reasonable question will reveal it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No plausible chance at being considered notable. I'm not seeing said sources but if they exists, then we can userify or draftify it. There's no need to keep it stored in the userspace of someone who hasn't been here in three and a half years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to FIRST Robotics Competition. I appear to have misread the draft previously, the draft is about a team, not about the competition.  The competition is covered at FIRST Robotics Competition.  It is plausible that more individual teams might be covered there.  There is at least one source covering this team.  Agree that it is implausible that this individual team would warrant a stand alone article, but that doesn't mandate deletion.  Dropping a note at Talk:FIRST Robotics Competition might be a good idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would it redirect to the competition? The team is one of thirty-nine Australian team (as of 2016), and that presumes that the team is around today. There's over 3100 teams. If it's not still active, is it really appropriate to redirect all past team names to the competition page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume I understand correctly that this competition is the main competition the team plays (played) in. The redirect is a strong hint that if they are interested in the topic of robot competitions, this topic is probably a good one to start with, instead of their old team.  Redirect does not imply attribution at the target, or that content should be merged, although it is possible that content may be merged.  "Delete with a suggestion to improve FIRST Robotics Competition" is effectively the same thing, but requires an administrator to be involved.  Requiring administrators (or other administrators) to be involved with such petty things is a waste of administrator resource.  But I don't oppose "delete now that we are here".  Indeed, this team has no plausible chance, beyond a possible mere mention, as a team, on the competition page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be deleted from mainspace, but redirection from userspace to the well related article is suitable, carrying a clear message to the author and preserving edit history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.