Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com
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. postdlf (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com[edit]
- Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very little coverage overall; all the references are either to the site being sued or other similar Internet forums, which are not reliable sources. Please do not be fooled by the over-referencing; just being discussed on forums makes little difference on notability.
No Google News results, and this just seems to be a run-of-the-mill case that was never very important in the long run. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability, unless somebody can cut through the 60 or so references to forums and similar web junk, and show us where the topic is discussed in depth in reliable sources. Sandstein 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have no idea how this is notable. Moondyne (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless secondary sources can be found. We can't write from primary sources, and that includes forum posts and court dockets, which is all this article has. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no reliable source for this at all. Moreover, there's no evidence at all that this case, among the millions filed each year, is in any way noteworthy. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 82.152.218.51 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2011 (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.