Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Totteringham's Day

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. Daniel Bryant 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Totteringham's Day

No references to confirm Notability sounds like WP:NFT to me. Delete--Greatestrowerever 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as well as WP:NFT, it's a pretty transparent attack on poor old Spurs so that WP:CSD#G10 probably applies ("no purpose but to disparage their subject"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Point of view, attack on spurs, badly written, offensive language, the lot. If this day had recieved any press to be noteable, the best action would probably still be to delete everything in this poorly written article and start over. Dr bab 08:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourcable nonsense essentially constituting attack page ChrisTheDude 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- it is sourcable & factual but not notable. Qwghlm 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Might be something made up by someone on arseweb, but I live smack in the middle of Gooner country & I've never heard anyone use the word. Not even worth transwikiing - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just an Arsenal fan using wikipedia to have a laugh at the expense of Spurs. Some Blackpool F.C. fans did something similar last year, adding the derogatary term "Knobbers" (or Nobbers I don't recall the exact word now) to describe fans of local rivals, Preston North End, citing made up historical "facts", which they all then talked about on a Fans Discussion Forum and saying how clever they were to get it on wikipedia. This smacks of being exactly the same. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it is sourcable and has many references on Google, therefore does not qualify as WP:NFT. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:33, 12 April 2007 (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.