Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve's backyard boxing

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve's backyard boxing

Website advertisement, original research, etc. Gamaliel 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Gimboid13 14:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Resurect when becomes notable Renata3 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this. The site was extremely popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.245.169 (talk • contribs).
• Delete who the heck is "Steve"?--MONGO 10:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gamaliel. Stifle 23:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea was not to promote the website, but the website is an integral part of the event. No money is drawn from the website, and even the nominal fee for a DVD of the fights is really only to cover shipping, handling, and materials. Psyphics 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Site has been up for many years and doesn't need advertising.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by William R Davis (talk • contribs).
• Keep. This article isn't about promoting a website. This article documents a local phenomenon that lasted for many years. -moralityplay, 29 November 2005
• Delete Izehar 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Jason Terrance
• Keep - People are giving reasons for keeping it, but no one has given a valid reason for deletion. Unless it is against any wikipedia standards/practices it shouldn't be deleted. --childishidealism
• I'm the webmaster of this somewhat languishing site(it's popularity has somewhat faded since 2001-2003 when it was most popular). That might leave me somewhat bias so I'll leave it to the community to decide whether this article should be deleted or not. I just want to address Gamaliel's first reason for deletion, website advertisement. I've seen some ext. weblinks on Wikipedia(and have nixed one link) that have been much more blatant website promotion than this article. More over, the article is more about the event(or it should be if not) than it is about the website, which isn't a commercial website. I have sold a handful of DVD's from the site, but I doubt that it has made me profit after all the expenses inccurred involving the website. That is all I wanted to say regarding this article.--Mitaphane 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for original research and not being notable.ParkerHiggins 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per arguments put forward by web site owner and others. (PS I changed "Do not delete" votes to "keep" to avoid confusion in tallying. Zordrac 12:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - interesting and quirky local phenomenon, of interest to a significant amount of people, and website was not mentioned for commercial purposes. --Steve

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.