Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24

Guide to deletion

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 keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented in the nomination. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. While it's arguable that the nominator could theoretically intend #14 at DEL-REASON as a basis for the nomination, this is not stated, the rationale herein is subjective, and the fact that this article went through and passed a GA review in 2012 serves to negate the notions presented in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom

I believe this article is unnecessary since we don't have any other fandom pages, and besides the brony community was never really relevant. Yeahbsolutely! Wanna talk? LOOK @ ME, DADDY, I'M A FARMER! 01:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Previous AFD in June 2012 closed the same. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Nominator as not outlined why it meets AFD criteria for deletion WP:DEL-REASON. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Sad that it is, this GA rated article does meet GNG as it has had significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. The nominator has made an inappropriate AFD with no AFD tag to the page or notified anyone about this nom, or specified a valid reason. Cowlibob (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Cowlibob - clearly notable, and already speedily kept back in 2012. We don't determine to keep an article based on whether or not other fandom pages exist. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:17, 24 May 2015 (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.

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Halifax Amateurs FC

Halifax Amateurs FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about an amateur football club. I was only able to find one source that makes a passing mention about the club. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete Agreed with nominator, there is a website with information about them but they don't meet WP:GNG LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 00:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources have been added, further ones to come once I am given their direct link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkydink84 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - very low-level amateur team. The general consensus for base club notability is that they must have played in a national league / cup competition, which I do not believe this club has. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - way way way below the level at which teams are deemed notable, fails all relevant policies/guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - article has not fixed the issues that caused it to be A7d last week. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY- will never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2015 (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.