Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Pro Dad

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Pro Dad

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

Non-notable organization (primary sources and self-praise) Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep due to sourced endorsement by notable NFL teams. Needs way more reliable sources, though. _noisy jinx ^huh? 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources. Endorsements are often paid for and rarely a sufficient indicator of actual importance. This article reads like an advert and appears to exist solely to promote this programme. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup. There appears to be coverage. See [1], [2], and [3] as examples. there's more but I stopped looking after these trhee. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - only the second one of those struck me as substantial coverage, for sufficiently loose standards of "substantial". The others were just examples of "anything an NFL player does, some local papers will cover it." Nobability is not contagious, nor can it be inherited. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thought about closing this as a delete, but if I did so, it might be taken to DRV as the current !votes really support "no consensus", thus, I am throwing my voice in favor of deleting this. Coverage is nominal at best and most of the sources are primary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or some serious notability requirements must be reached. Dengero (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent sources that assert any Wikipedia:notability. Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a non-admin, I recommend this WP:OLD be closed as Delete. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (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.