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 no consensus. A merge is suggested - this would not be a bad idea. Proto ► 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded by Blood (poster)[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable, not encyclopdaedic, at best can be merged into the All Blacks page Spearhead 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment not that neither Adidas nor All Blacks link to this page. If it was notable, these articles should at least have linked it back. In fact the only page linking to it is a disambiguation page. Spearhead 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete so the poster has their DNA in it, eh? Lets put it in a cloning machine and have an All-Blacks on All-Blacks rugby game! Cornell Rockey 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This poster is a widely popular marketing piece by Adidas, a notable company. This has been covered by the Wall Street Journal.[1] Do not confuse the lay meaning of notable with the meaning of the Wikipedia policy. --Richard Daly 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable, just a load of nonsense 24.132.57.116 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not an argument, that's an assertion. This is a discussion, not a vote. --Richard Daly 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a perfect argument in AfD. Todd661 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (or its lack) is a potential conclusion of an argument, but if offered without grounds it is a naked assertion. An argument has at least two parts: a thesis and the support for that thesis. "Not notable, just a load of nonsense" may be what 24.132.57.116 would like to show, but he or she offers no evidence to support this assertion: no discussion of any theory of notability, no citations to the article or anything outside the article, and nothing to support the vague "load of nonsense" accusation. -- Richard Daly 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to team article, subject is verifiable but I don't see a whole article for it being necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per seraphimblade. DanielZimmerman 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has enough sources to qualify as notable. Merging would be a great idea, except that the main article about the All Blacks is currently almost twice the recommended article length. The absolute best solution would be for someone to break up the All Blacks article per Wikipedia:Article series, then merge and redirect Bonded by Blood into one of the resulting articles, but (1) that's a lot to ask of whatever random editor carries out the recommendation of this group, and (2) a merge and redirect doesn't even require an AFD. (Although jamming these two paragraphs and their references into the All Blacks article might encourage a spin-out, that reasoning smacks of WP:POINT). Thanks, TheronJ 22:44, 27 February 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.