Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Par (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

King Par
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has lacked any references since 2007, and has received less than 25 edits in its entire history to date. A first AFD in 2009 was closed as no consensus, with one editor claiming there were sources but failing to add them. Steven Walling 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Coverage is limited to press releases, adverts and incidental coverage. There seems to be none in which the store is the subject of the coverage, as required by GNG, and there is no reason to suspect that any exists. wjemather bigissue 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above. Reading over that previous AfD disappointed me.  Of the three Keep proponents, one based his opposition on what apparently was a string of attacks on the nom's AfDs, one opined that sources existed without proffering any, while the third blatantly admitted that the sources he found were not about the subject, but about people affiliated with the subject.  What I want to see are - as the GNG requires - multiple, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."  It is explicitly, per deletion policy, not the duty of Delete proponents to prove that such sources do not exist, but the duty of Keep proponents to prove that they do.  Not surmise, not speculate, not extrapolate: prove.   Ravenswing  18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the "sources" provided in the first AFD do not establish that the subject actually passes WP:GNG. I grew up near this store and it was generally known by local golfers but by no means a major landmark and the subject fails WP:CORP as well. -Drdisque (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.