Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Mumm


 * 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 keep.  Milk’s Favorite Cookie   (Talk)  01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Mumm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is a businessman with no claim to notability (co-owns an IBL basketball team; works for Microsoft?) Only two users have contributed substantive edits (one registered, one IP), at least one of which appears to be connected with the subject of the article. Article is orphaned and unsourced. Prod was deleted without comment by the IP editor. QuixoticKate (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The new sources do improve the article. Assuming that his being an owner and assistant coach in the IBL is the information which others are basing their determination of notability, I disagree that this is sufficient. (Guideline for athletes: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.") At best, I think this article should redirect to the Snohomish County Explosion page. QuixoticKate (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm surprised at all the Keep votes I'm seeing. Do you all understand the nature of the IBL? A lot of those teams are playing in high school gyms. A redirect would be fine, but this guy doesn't need his own article. Zagalejo^^^ 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Simple question, way not? Third party – reliable – verifiable and creditable sources were provided.  Isn’t that the criteria to meet notability?  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always. Subjects who are covered in purely local sources should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Look, I'm usually on the keep side of these debates, but I know enough about basketball to conclude that an IBL team owner really isn't notable enough for his own article. The basketball coach at my old high school gets more Google News hits than this guy, and I can't imagine that his article would last very long. We have to draw the line somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL- I admit most of the coverage is local. However, the Seattle Times, were more than one article appears, is a nationally known – reliable source.  In addition, what constitutes ‘’Notability”.  As we see by this discussion, it varies from individual to individual. I would rather error on the side of inclusion, on the chance someone may be looking for information, than deletion, once again on the chance someone will be looking for information.  Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   —QuixoticKate (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: providing they actually provide references. Dwilso  15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – I have added an inline cite and also a reference from a third party reliable and creditable source. However, the article still reads more like a resume than biographical piece. ShoesssS Talk 15:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep RS coverage and I think team owner is a degree of notability TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The IBL is far at the bottom of the American basketball totem pole, below two or three other minor leagues. IBL players wouldn't normally be considered notable, so owners shouldn't be, either. That indoor football league doesn't seem like much, either. It only has two teams organized at the moment! Zagalejo^^^ 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the available coverage provided by third party sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the improvements made. Pedro : Chat  21:11, 23 April 2008 (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.