Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite District Gaming United

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 speedy deleted by User:GB fan per CSD A7, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elite District Gaming United[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does no appears encyclopedic and need to be rewritten. Meanwhile it was written by a new editor who is suppose to learn the rules and guidlines on how to write artcle. Wikicology 10:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Wikicology, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended "rewrite" (not delete) as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. Have a good one czar ♔ 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do that, I'll write a deletion nomination for him: The subject does not meet the WP:GNG in any capacity. It's currently sourced entirely to a first party Facebook page, and a Google search located zero results that help establish notability. (There's no way this is notable, so we shouldn't waste time calling this off due to a bogus nomination when it ought to be deleted. Let's not get too caught up in bureaucracy.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my first comment above. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7: organization with no assertion of notability. No Google or WP:VG/RS hits either. Also wasn't about to speedy keep this—just boilerplate czar ♔ 03:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promo in the understandable bits. Not very clear, but doesn't look notable (two pages of virtually all Facebook links at Google and nothing independent or reliable) even though I'm still not sure what this thing is. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2014 (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.