Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go for your life

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 - there were two sides saying non-notable and notable. I didn't see any attempt documented in the article to substantiate notability, which I feel tipped the balance.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go for your life

Prodded for non-notability, de-prodded without any explanation. So little content that I'm tempted to use {{db-empty}}, but just enough that I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy. It is, however, pretty much just a glorified external link. There's nothing here that would be any kind of loss if someone wanted to re-create the article later with some actual content. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the phrases we should never hear on AfD is "de-prodded without any explanation". It doesn't have any relevance to your rationale for deletion, and only serves to increase the perception in the minds of other Wikipedians that de-prodding articles is a Bad Thing, when in fact it's one of the cornerstones of the process. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But deprodding without addressing the concerns felt by the user who prodded it is never going to achieve anything. Viridae^Talk 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it will. For the person who thought the article wasn't worth deleting ... it won't be deleted (at least, not by PRODding). Voila! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While a lack of explanation is not reason enough to go ahead and delete something, I don't agree that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I see "failed prod" in AfD nominations on a regular basis. If an article was de-prodded, then I want to know why so I can take that into account when "voting" in the AfD. It's easier if the nominator gives me that info here so I don't have to dig through the history (which, depending on the article and the edit summaries, might take plenty of digging indeed). If an article is de-prodded for a stated reason, I'll include that in my AfD nomination, too. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we see it in AfD nominations all the time — and that's a Bad Thing. The general atmosphere is not so much, "I think other AfDers would be interested to know why the PROD tag was removed, so they can share in the de-prodder's indignance", but more along the lines of, "some utter PRICK removed the tag, so I'm forced to waste all y'all's time with an AfD nomination. If we delete this article, we'll teach him a lesson!" I appreciate your bone fides here, and I agree with you that if the de-PRODder gave a reason for removing the tag it should be noted somewhere in the AfD discussion. However, if it's removed without discussion then it's not particularly relevant — and we see far too many annoyed nominations complaining about de-PRODders. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable campaign. -TrackerTV 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is quite notable and quite prominent in Australian media. It is a rebirth of of the Life. Be in it. campaign. Viridae^Talk 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't merge and redirect make more sense at this point, then? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The campaigns are seperate. The State govt has just started up a new campaign using the premise of the old (what I meant by rebirth) Viridae^Talk 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, you meant "premise". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • For once we agree on something /cheer -- 153.2.246.32 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Every state/region etc. has an advertising campaign for one thing or another. I can't think of any reason why we should include articles on those campaigns here. At best, merge to article for the region. --JJay 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable campaign in Australia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not much more to say about it --Astrokey44 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There seem to be enough material about this campaign. It was associated with promotion of the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as above. Especially agree with JJay that there are many ad campaigns by governments all around the world, and there needs to be justification for including a campaign. Many of them have slogans, and most are not encyclopedically notable. I don't see any special reason to include this one - it is not even a national campaign. Bwithh 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, allow for organic expansion. -- 153.2.246.32 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable campaign at this point.--Peta 04:42, 1 August 2006 (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.