Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of Feburary 3rd

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 Snow close (as Delete). A more appropriate occasion for one will rarely arise. DGG (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of Feburary 3rd[edit]

~~Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Snowball fights are not notable, especially one where the only reference is from facebook. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't see anything, ever, making this notable. Probably made by schoolkids looking to have a bit more fun after a snowball fight. Delete per failing WP:NOTABILITY. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only frustration is that I cannot think of an appropriate speedy criterion for it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. let me explain guys..This WAS important to the town, and appeared in the evening newspaper, which does have a website, and when it is on the site, shall be referenced here.
~~Keep~~; in addition, there will be lots of people who want to see this. If you have to delete it (essentially be miserable), then at least consider it until morning x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't !vote more than once. AfDs are kept open for 5 days or so anyway if there is any contention, so a fair trial will be given. However, just because this was in your local newspaper, doesn't make it immediately notable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete RHaworth, neither can I...didn't keep me from trying, though. :-) (Perhaps I'm in a mean mood today?) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the problem with the page i suppose. It happened, people are interested, it made local news..of course more references will be added when they become available :) So no problems whatsoever, it would seem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Um, the "evening newspaper" in which this appeared wasn't even cited in the article. As far as notability, I would expect an additional cite other than the local newspaper alone otherwise one could write a wikipedia entry on the weather in Shrewsbury that day, which, I presume, was also reported in the same issue. (kind of a fun article though) --Quartermaster (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheer up :) I didn't realise everything on wikipedia had to be of global historical importance. What is wikipedia for, if not for people to access information? This is information! It fulfills all the criteria for a relevant article, and none for a useless one! Don't automatically assume it is void because it doesn't involve yourselves or isn't a massive event. :) be happy, its snowy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean except for WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~; It was notable, especially locally. The research is original, with contributors to the page taking first hand accounts from people involved, as well as those that weren't, and merely expressed an interest in a local matter. The source and verifiability of the article seems fine to me, but then I am of course biased. it would be a shame for this article to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your two previous keeps since you voting numerous times. Please, you have expressed your opinion above, feel free to keep on commenting, but you can only vote once. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per the list of reasons cited by Cyclonenim. This might make it into a town wiki, if the town has one. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipeida is not for something invented in school doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Or we might as well scrap the notability guidelines and write biographies of our stuffed animals. Ray (talk) 21:01, 3 February 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.