Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Salvo (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Championship Gaming Series. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Salvo

This article (as well as several others like it) was previously AfDed with a result of "merge". The merge never happened. The article has little coherent content and gets a lot of IP vandalism. As the banner says "If this merge is not completed promptly this article my be re-nominated for deletion". So here we are. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. I see no reason to delete; there are articles about this team that make at least most of the article verifiable. JulesH (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources that could be useful: [1] [2] JulesH (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter of those two articles suggests the team has notability distinct from Championship Gaming Series as this was a different contest that they won. JulesH (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Independent references are required; The first provided by JulesH is just a press release, whilst the Birmingham Post is more useful. As a short article in a local paper, I don't think this is significant enough to warrant a seperate article. I'd like to see the merge proposed previously to be completed. Although table-heavy, I'm sure they can be presented concisely, I'll be happy to have a crack at it. Marasmusine (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a compromise. As Maramusine pointed out, only one source does anything for notability, and even that is pretty questionable. But there was a merge tag here, so let's give that a shot instead of deletion. Randomran (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That merge tag has been there since August and nobody even started the merge. I have no objection to the merge but it has to happen this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best way to ensure that it is done is to do it yourself. None of the volunteer editors here is obliged to do anything just because someone demands that it "has to happen". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the whole walled garden of articles on Professional Gaming teams and players is mostly WP:Complete bollocks. I have just been exploring some of it and quickly became despondent as it seems to be a vast sprawl of vanity articles. Even the articles with references seem to rely on a small number of websites which are questionable for WP:RS. I would have voted "delete" in the first AfD and I remain more than happy for the result to be delete this time. As such, I am probably not the best person to do a merge. That said, if we do decide to merge here, and nobody else does it, I will just concatenate all the articles together. I would prefer it if somebody else, who actually knows and cares about the subject did it instead of me. They are much more likely to do a good job of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (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.