Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Nectar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 consensus to delete as non-notable nancy (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amber Nectar
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. There're no reliable sources for this article at all. --Yamla (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
theGeneva (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- This entry has been updated with recognizable and reliable references and supporting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyMcNasty (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is an article about a football fanzine and is similar to Abandon Chip!, TOOFIF or War of the Monster Trucks all of which contain less references--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Surely that's more of a reason to nominate those fanzines for deletion than to keep this one. – PeeJay 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you believe that the notion of keeping articles on fanzines is valid (and let's face it, there is one on fanzine) maybe it's a reason to define them all as notable and find some good references to support that notability?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just say that something is notable and then go scrounging around to find sources to back up your statement. If anything, it should be the other way around. If the former was true, we'd get people publishing articles about their favourite subject left, right and centre just to get a bit of recognition on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hyperbole. Think actually we are in argeement in as much as we are seeking reliable sources to 'prove' notability not merely 'scrounging around' for anything. There does, however, appear to be a trend on WP to take the easy opton and cry delete too quickly rather than helping an article by finding good references. This places the full onus for improvement on the article creator.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is true. However, the few references I have found that even mention this particular fanzine only mention it in passing. For example, it was mentioned in a number of references where the editor was interviewed, but nothing further. Delete is surely the appropriate !vote in this case. – PeeJay 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hyperbole. Think actually we are in argeement in as much as we are seeking reliable sources to 'prove' notability not merely 'scrounging around' for anything. There does, however, appear to be a trend on WP to take the easy opton and cry delete too quickly rather than helping an article by finding good references. This places the full onus for improvement on the article creator.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just say that something is notable and then go scrounging around to find sources to back up your statement. If anything, it should be the other way around. If the former was true, we'd get people publishing articles about their favourite subject left, right and centre just to get a bit of recognition on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you believe that the notion of keeping articles on fanzines is valid (and let's face it, there is one on fanzine) maybe it's a reason to define them all as notable and find some good references to support that notability?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Surely that's more of a reason to nominate those fanzines for deletion than to keep this one. – PeeJay 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N (no independent reliable significant third-party sources). Btw, I don't really think fanzines are notable. --Angelo (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (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.
