Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guards on Duty

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. An early closure, as this falls squarely under A7. Content has been userfied as requested (User:Billcheese1/Guards on Duty) Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guards on Duty[edit]

Non notable web forum Passportguy (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Passportguy, I understand you have to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and cleanliness, I am the writer of the Guards on Duty article, and I understand that you may think it is "non notable," for it is a smaller site. But I believe all sites start somewhere and cannot always contribute or be nationally recognized without gaining some ground first. The site aforementioned offers insight into various medias and personal reviews. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you do decide to delete it, I would like it to be userfied, or whatever the term was, to my talk page and/or emailed to me. Thank you, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcheese1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billcheese1, we understand that the article may grow in importance in the future. But until it gets reliable sources and is verifiable, we can't consider it notable enough at this stage. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's our policy to delay articles about such future successes until they indeed become successful. Whilst it might deserve an article in the future, it might not. And, as you seem to understand, it doesn't really deserve one at its current swtage. Thanks for being a good sport about it. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gaming clan/forum with no assertion of notability. Best of luck to them, and I hope their article is recreated in the future when they've achieved notability, but right now? 'fraid not. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as requested - not notable at this time -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy per above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (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.