Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.sport

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. Last-minute addition of some weak sourcing does not resolve the issues brought up in this discussion. When this becomes more than just speculation (and would not violate WP:CRYSTAL an article would likely be appropriate. Shereth 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.sport[edit]

Recreation of article recently speedily deleted under the same name. The problem is with the topic, not the content, and remains exactly the same.

This is not an article about a ".sport" TLD. That would be notable. This article is spam from one company, claiming to have a plan to possibly make a submission to ICANN for a .sport TLD. That is no more notable than a plan I might have myself to submit an application for a ".andy" TLD, I merely need to get round to doing the paperwork. At this stage of the process this is simply not notable, and no more than commercial spam on the behalf of a single organisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone not already familiar with it might do well to read WP:OSE Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I applaud the effort of the creator, this topic does not appear to have received any independent coverage, all the information appears to come from the proposers' website. If this is the only source available - I can't find any others - then it won't be possible to write a verifiable, neutral article on the topic which is free of original work. Guest9999 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about an unofficial proposal suspected to perhaps be made sometime in 2009, Wikipedia does not predict the future and notability can't be inherited from the future either, particularly based on such unofficial, predicted proposals that may or may not happen. SGGH ^speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a crystal ball, not notable, the works. Please fix also GTLD --217.184.142.6 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ^[1][reply]
Delete - per Andy and others, on notability, COI/spam and crystal-ball grounds. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added 2 external references to address the notability issue CaptainNet (talk) 15:26, 14 June 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.