Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol Collective: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 28 July 2017

Sol Collective

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only very local press coverage, so of no general significance for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known in the state of California and covered as such. From a cultural perspective it is a growing and prominent force. Karl Twist (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If California had its own wiki this article would certainly deserve a place but it is too local for wikipedia.Domdeparis (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close No argument for deletion. A deletion argument is based on a WP:DEL-REASON as stated in WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with nomination with the important basis, "press coverage, no general significance for an encyclopedia" which is in fact one of the WP:Deletion policy criteria, therefore speedy close is entirely inapplicable here especially when there's no clear outcome for Speedy Keep. The only other argument, a Keep, is a WP:ITSIMPORTANT to its consumers, and offered no guarantee of improvements, which therefore is also criteria for WP:Deletion policy; one or two criteria is genuinely enough for any deletion, but worse when there's no foresight of improvements to counter this. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument that this is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia is premised on the sources being local, but local sources are fine. "The sources are local" is not an argument for deletion. Who is attracted to fake deletion debates? Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Speedy close'''&nbsp; No argument for deletion.&nbsp; A deletion argument is based on a WP:DEL-REASON as stated in [[WP:Deletion policy]].&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' as I agree with nomination with the important basis, "press coverage, no general significance for an encyclopedia" which is in fact one of the WP:Deletion policy criteria, therefore speedy close is entirely inapplicable here especially when there's no clear outcome for Speedy Keep. The only other argument, a Keep, is a WP:ITSIMPORTANT to its consumers, and offered no guarantee of improvements, which therefore is also criteria for WP:Deletion policy; one or two criteria is genuinely enough for any deletion, but worse when there's no foresight of improvements to counter this. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
+:*No, the argument that this is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia is premised on the sources being local, but local sources are fine.&nbsp; "The sources are local" is not an argument for deletion.&nbsp; Who is attracted to fake deletion debates?&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)