Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingham County League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JoshuaZ 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ingham County League[edit]
- Ingham County League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Lacks notability. The organization has now folded. When it was around it was only a bunch of high schools competing against each other. Clerks. 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. W1k13rh3nry 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yeah, okay, but the Soviet Union is an organization that has folded as well but wikipedia still seems to host an article for it. If the next point is valid that it was "only a bunch of high schools competing against each other," then can someone explain the relevance of, say, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences or any of its subdirectories while maintaining that the ICL is irrelevant? Free the ICL! Hornet00
- Delete no notability is asserted. To the previous commentor - please see WP:N guidelines. If this organization meets one of the criteria listed there, please assert that in the article - such an assertion, if backed up with a source, could turn this nomination around. As far as other articles, please read this essay: Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Lyrl Talk C 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Indrian 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i'm completely confused. after reading the WP:N and reviewing some of the articles for deletion, it seems that wikipedia is deliberatly striving to be the opposite of what it should be. since the experiment of wikipedia is to allow anyone the authority to edit, one would assume that the result would be one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias assembled. the product, however, is an encyclopedia which is full of prejudiced submissions towards contemporary or even remotely controversial subjects (ie. Dick Cheney) while deliberately devoid of any articles that are written by true authorities about subjects that would otherwise not receive any general-audience encyclopaedic notoriety yet still merit some sort of historical preservation... and therefore eliminating what should make wikipedia unique. therefore, articles are either 1) spotted with misinformation or 2) do not exist. Sorry for wasting everyone's time, apparently.
- 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.