Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough mudder
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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tough mudder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N insufficient 3rd party WP:RS sources covering this organization / events to pass. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should have also included per WP:CRYSTAL as this [1] indicates that its first race will be held on May
162nd 2010. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete Per nom, one source is a PR newswire reprint, others dont seem that much better. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's an upcoming event that is not noteworthy yet. All known information originated from their web site; no reliable sources for anything. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's actually a candidate for speedy deletion, as ToughMudder seems to have been deleted already for the same reason. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Also from the looks of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tough_Mudder, someone has already explained to the author what the problems are, and they just resorted to lower-casing the M on this one to bypass that. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prior deletion was done as a speedy deletion, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is correct, I looked it up later and I was thinking of deletions after discussions. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prior deletion was done as a speedy deletion, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Press releases do not take the place of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (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.