[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomberblitz: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Haemo (talk | contribs)
comment
Scmods (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
*'''Delete''' - completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, does not appear to pass [[WP:N]]. Moreoever, it's not verging on advert, it ''is'' an advert :) [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, does not appear to pass [[WP:N]]. Moreoever, it's not verging on advert, it ''is'' an advert :) [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - I can find one [[WP:RS]], as noted on the talk page, but that's it. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - I can find one [[WP:RS]], as noted on the talk page, but that's it. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - It is a well known site in the media and was referenced on multiple occasions in newspapers and on TV Stations last year. It led a campaign against a new rule being brought in by the [[Australian Football League]] and was commented on by many, including [[Eddie McGuire]]

Revision as of 10:12, 9 May 2007

Bomberblitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Disputed speedy. Assertion of notability ("...one of Australia's most important sporting websites and is well known in the Australian media") is not sourced. Their one claim to fame is a newspaper article describing how a newspaper was burned by using Bomberblitz as a source. That is one minor article, not sufficient in my opinion.Herostratus 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]