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 all. Consensus is to delete all with one exception. The articles are grouped here because the nominator feels that they should be discussed together, and all of the articles fail WP:N and are possible hoaxes.

Culturenga[edit]

This series of articles all appear to be hoaxes. The tenants of the stadiums are also at AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma) Delete because they do not exist. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire lot. No references anywhere. Either hoaxes or completely unnotable. Either way, fail WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The stadia are not likely to be hoaxes, based on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma. Notability probably needs to be assessed individually, and not in a lump nomination. Neier (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entries should be assessed individually. Actually they are all hoaxes EXCEPT the "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I know this one exists because it is not far from my house.The rest dump them, their names do not even make sense. Teixant (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I bundled the nomination because if all the articles were separate, arguments could be scattered and lost. If the AfD does need to be split I am okay with it happening but I think the way things are set up now is best. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete all. Can't find any verification on google, no references. Everyone one of them seems to be a single copy. Hoax.— Ѕandahl 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very nice catch Eóin. Delete all per Teixant and per lack of sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:05, 25 May 2008 (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.