Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial noise

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable topic. this is not suitable for an article. original research/neologism. no references. no citations. no sources. unref banner there for nearly a year with no improvements. very few articles link here. no external links. only one category. Troyster87 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Rather than flagging for deletion immediately, consider searching for citations and verifying that the article has no references. I added a couple for you, so this article now has references and can be considered Notable. It's likely more could be added with a minor amount of effort. That said, this article should probably be renamed to something like Noise_(Sports) instead of Artificial Noise. Crickel (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While largely original research at the moment, this is hardly a non-notable topic. There have been games where the use of a whistle or other noisemaker by the crowd has influenced gameplay (don't have a reference handy but Yahoo had one such instance in basketball on their home page a few weeks ago). I do support the renaming of the article to Noise (sports) or Artificial noise (sports) or Crowd noise (sports) etc. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considerable number of potential references, as shown by those already added. The rename can be discussed subsequently. DGG (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.