Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croomed

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. -Doc^g 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croomed

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Croomed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

previously {{prod}}ed as non-notable neologism; also db-attack may apply, checked links in article going to espn.com and did not find any which contain the word "croomed".  — MrDolomite | Talk 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The link to espn.com had nothing to do with the word "croomed". It was a link proving that Mike Shula had been fired. None of the links below that point had the word "croomed", but was included to provide information about the specific firings. Did you even read those? Croomdawg 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg -- Note: Croomdawg is the article's creator.

• Delete Like the nominator, I don't see any mention of the word other than in blogs. CiaranG 08:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Given the manner in which blogs are changing the world, is this such a bad thing? Wiki is really nothing more than a big blog with some citations. Radical ralph 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not appropriate for here House of Scandal 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I see nothing inappropriate here. Minnesota twin 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)-- User has six edits, four of which are to this AfD.

• Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not the greatest article, but worthy of inclusion. Fits very well in the Football terminology category. MaximusWiki 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has five edits.

I didn't even know there was a category for it. Cool. Croomdawg 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nomination that it be deleted. I'd have suggested it much earlier if I knew how. What work I have done on it was to improve an already pointless and slanderous article.--Wvenus 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Good enough for SI, it should be good enough for Wiki. Croomdawg 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI - Hmm, not a lot of faith in Croomdawg (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) based on these edits to this AFD. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep It seems like a good article. I don't know why it was nominated for deletion and you can't reason it for delete because you like the nominator. Perhaps a good re-write could help the article. Retiono Virginian 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Plenty good enough for inclusion. Iheartseeplusplus 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has ten edits, two of which are to this AfD. All edits made within a ten-minute period.

I think you misread. Like the nominator, I don't see any mention of the word other than in blogs. I'll try to be clearer in future, but it still makes sense to me. That means there are no reliable sources (WP:RS), it's unverifiable (WP:V), and not notable (WP:NOTE). My view is that you can't give 'it seems like a good article' as a reason for keeping it. (WP:ILIKEIT). CiaranG 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep 'it seems like a good article' is as good a reason as any. He doesn't say he likes the subject, but he likes the article. There is a huge difference. Croomdawg 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of any kind. Wryspy 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is a fine line between a dictionary and an encyclopedia and I don't think that this article crosses it. Blizzardman2007 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has three edits, all to this AfD.
• Speedy keep Wikipedia is a place for pop-culture references. It was in Sports Illustrated for goodness sakes. Croomdawg 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Also mentioned in the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger newspaper. It is far more significant and more widespread than a few fan blogs. Although it is unverifiable for the purposes of Wiki, the word has also been used on ESPN Radio. Croomdawg 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg

• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia standards. N0n1in34r 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has only five edits --
• Keep Seems okay to me although I would remove the picture of the axe. Blizzardman2007 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What axe??? Minnesota twin 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the axe is probably a little over the top. It probably should be removed. Croomdawg 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg

• Strong Keep Could benefit from a rewrite, but otherwise alright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Landisfan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
• Comment The last two editor's only contributions have been to this AfD discussion. CiaranG 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am confused as to why this page is even being considered for deletion. It clearly should remain. LudaKristopher 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has four edits, two of which are to the article or to this AfD.
• Strong Keep Seems fine to me. Fits in well with Wiki's trend towards inlcusion of many new elements in the sports lexicon. Defintite keeper. Radical ralph 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has six edits, four of which are to this AfD.
• Keep I verified the links and they seem accurate. Not notable to me, but might be to some. Should not have been nominated. FUManu2007 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has five edits, two of which are to this AfD.
• Delete blogs are not usually considered reliable sources and as such this should be deleted both as a non-notable neologism (WP:NOT) and for failing WP:V. QmunkE 20:16, 30 January 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.