Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da GV

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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da GV

Nonsense. No meaningful Google hits for "Da GV" or "Garnet Vicinity", zero Google hits for "Garnet Street Vipers". User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7. The only author of the page admitted the non-notability in the article text: "The GV came into existance in 2003, not much has happened since." Vslashg 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to Delete per Sjakkalle below. Vslashg 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you just marry google? Just because people dont know about it or it hasnt got any "google hits" doesn't make it any less real. It's just ignorance thats what it is.

I've never heard of this place and I've been in Liverpool all my life. Explain more otherwise of course it will get deleted.

"Not much has happened since" doesn't make it non-notable. It means not much has happened since. Doesn't make Da GV any less an integral part of society in the slums of old swan.Daquios

Daniel: So a new place is born onto the map, and you people have decided to throttle it already? You have never been to the place yet you already claim it doesn't exist? Give it a chance.

Before considering its deletion at least allow me to develop the article into something informative and good and stuff. Its an interesting and important part of liverpool and not a lot of people know about it. Just let it be, let it be. There will be an answer, let it be. (sorry for the song lyrics at the end there) Trust me, no google hits doesnt mean anythin. Daquios 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you want to make this a better article about your group in Liverpool. The important consideration here is Wikipedia's policy about Verifiability. Articles should be about things which can be verified by other reputable sources. It's fine to want to let the world know about Da GV, and perhaps one day it might be notable, but until that day, Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word. Vslashg 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finish the article before you post it. It's serves no purpose to anyone, doesn't inform anyone about the area and is filled with useless and stupid junk. "A few optimistic back room supremos have even suggested that they will win the UEFA Champions League by 2020." Who? Heh, if there's only talk about a team in the area, howcome pundits are already talking about them? Come on, put some effort in. Finish the article before posting.

Well let us at least finish it then. When its finished consider the deletion...

Or, you could finish it, then re-post it.

I could. But id rather not.

Then I support the move for deletion. --Church

• Delete or Speedy Delete either way is good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:NOR, and if a good rationale can be found I'll even support a speedy. At the moment though, I think it'd be a stretch to shoehorn it into CSD A7. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous content, but it is not an article about a person or group of people, so it won't fit the speedy criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Da Lete. VanicruftsORpboxisement, or something. --Malthusian (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Da Lete??!! Oh wot is that? It may seem ridiculous, but its the truth. That old swan chief A-ca-oo-oo -aa may seem ridiculous but its the truth. Like the Toxteth triangle.

• Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism"

I refer the makers of this "information" to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day - please start writing some useful stuff.

it wasnt made up in school one day

Looks like it was. It's getting better, but for a whole area, it needs far more detail and depth.

• As long as it's not officially recognised 'Da GV' is unlikely to be accepted as an article, but you might want to see if there's anything you could contribute to the articles on the areas that are officially accepted: Liverpool, Tuebrook, etc. --Malthusian (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of things on wikipedia arent officialy recognized

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.