Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cronulla 2230

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 - add to main article as needed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronulla 2230

Cronulla 2230 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Not notable. Had 5 seconds of fame, if that. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per non - not notable. --Bduke 08:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. A trivia mention on the
  John Vandenberg 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources = notable, and this has that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Orderinchaos78 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per John. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cronulla race riots - but I wouldn't call the game trivial in the context of that article. Garrie 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per GarrieIrons.
  .V. (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and merge per John -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Garrie.
  JROBBO 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable gamecruft. — coelacan talk — 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe the world would be a better place if the media and politicians didn't give the board game free publicity. But that is irrelevant. They gave it oxygen, so it is notable. I hope people don't conflate the issue of whether the game ought to be notable with whether or not it actually is. Andjam 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it hasn't any oxygen for a while now. Even if it seemed notable at the time, with hindsight, it wasn't. IMHO, of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have summarised the content per my suggestion above. Even if the article remains it is a reasonable addition to the race riot article Garrie 01:05, 17 January 2007 (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.