Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Defection
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 Redirect to Nevada Wolf Pack football. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Defection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Search for "Red Defection" on Yahoo--one hit, Wikipedia. No coverage to speak of under this name--not on ESPN, not in Vegas or Reno media. Blueboy96 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepLooks like Google wins out over Yahoo for this search. "Red Defection" plus "Wolf Pack" gets me this, but the other few results are on forums, and I can't seem to find the original articles from which they come from. Appears to be a name used by fans of the Wolf Pack, and thus could be a neologism. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge After seeing some other suggestions, merging would be a better solution; Nevada Wolf Pack football would probabaly be a better place than Chris Ault, although this could use a mention in Ault's article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – One reference, and that by a blog, does not make for a notable article. If anything, Merge to Chris Ault article. Shoessss | Chat 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, shades of WP:NEO here, but also no reliable sources that use this term. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge - Merge the information into a Nevada Wolf Pack football article, or, if that's not created yet, the general Nevada Wolf Pack article. matt91486 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Matt91486 or Delete as an uncited neoligism. A highly specific idiom with an unclear degree of breadth in its usage. If it could be expanded and justified, that's great. As it is, it's not an encyclopedia article. -Markeer 16:19, 23 December 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.