Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol Collective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 4 August 2017 (Sol Collective: D). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sol Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 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 policyUnscintillating (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]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the last-minute sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sources do not establish notability: they are almost all local to Sacramento, CA. HuffPo is not NYT, and KQED is local to Northern California. WP:ADVOCACY for an org that is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. All of this information can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]