Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Bolts Security

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go Bolts Security

edit
Go Bolts Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states "Go Bolts Security is a fictional security company..." Enough said. --Σ talkcontribs 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extremely weak argument. Are you saying that nothing fictional is on Wikipedia? If that's the case, let's delete the pages of all fictional movies and books. If there is a valid reason to delete the article, I at least believe it should be merged into the Tampa Bay Lightning page and have this page redirect there. This was a major story and spent an entire weekend on the front page of Yahoo. Scp333 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on this quote directly from the Notability page:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I think the article can be removed from the Articles for deletion list. Scp333 (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see your argument, but this is a bit of WP:NOTNEWS and notable only for a single event (I know that's for biographies, but 1 event doesn't count as notability enough); there's little chance of this being expanded. Although I applaud your usage of wiki-markup and the time you spent on the article (which is of considerably higher quality than in most of the new pages I see), I still believe it should be deleted. --Σ talkcontribs 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to have as a sub section on the Tampa Bay Lightning page? Scp333 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could survive a merge, yes. --Σ talkcontribs 06:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't agree with the nomination reason, because Dunder Mifflin would fall under the same nomination criteria, but I do agree with Themfromspace, this news story was a one weekend only kind of story. It has no enduring notability. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Scp333 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.40.3 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? --Σ talkcontribs 06:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically just a local news story of just another non-notable dispute with an HOA. Newsworthy is not a synonym for noteworthy. Resolute 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the 2010-11 Tampa Bay Lightning season. The subject does not warrant an article by itself, but I'm sure it warrants a section on that page. warrior4321 06:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - major canvassing issue aside, this lacks the coverage required to show any sort of enduring notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Period. This is a clear NOTNEWS violation, and WP:NOT trumps the GNG. While no doubt Mr. Paul is unhappy that his 15 minutes of "fame" fizzled as quickly as it arrived, this is a very minor story, and NOTNEWS is specifically there to deal with the whacky ephemeral nonsense pushed by bored bloggers looking to fill the 24-hour news cycle.

    Chalk me up as being opposed to a merge as well. In terms of the history of a major league sports team that's been around nearly 20 years and has won the Stanley Cup, this is a very insignificant incident which scarcely does pertain to the team. We don't include every wacky fan who wears a tinfoil Cup on his head and does the chicken dance after every goal, and we don't include every bench clearing brawl ever fought, and we don't include every fourth-liner's complaint about getting more ice time, and we ought not include this.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  08:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Merge, tending towards Delete At best this article's notability is basically inherited from Tampa Bay Lightning—without the team, this would be meaningless—and might warrant a merge onto their page. However, where would it go or what would it be? It seems like a fun trivia fact at best, and as User:Ravenswing stated above, would not loom particularly large in the team's 20-year history.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go_Bolts_Security&oldid=1137882623"