Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports & Fitness Industry Association


 * 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. WelshWonderWoman's opinion does not address the reasons for deletion (or is in fact an argument for deletion), and the rest of the discussion clearly tends towards that.  Sandstein  18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sports & Fitness Industry Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, all references are to a company/organization website. Notability tags were added in June, no improvement since. Rwessel (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sources exist, but the article doesn't reflect the fact. Bloomberg Boston Globe It would take some work to determine if these are enough for a strong keep, however. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart when completely better as the name is not easy to search but with some recent Books results, it's imaginable this may have better coverage (although I found none at Newspapers Archive). SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It seems like an interesting article, it just need more sources. WelshWonderWoman (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the www.tennisindustry.org link cited above says little other than that a name change is happening, the Bloomberg link doesn't appear to have any content about the organization at all (I'm not clear that what's displayed there isn't actually the title of that portion of Bloomberg's web site), and the Boston Globe just quotes one statistic from them, without any other indication of notability. Rwessel (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I think I'm just on the other side of the line from LaMona. Userfy if there is an interested editor, but I don't think the current article meets notability criteria, and my searches didn't turn up enough to warrant keeping.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - looks like it could be notable, but without significant independent coverage this is a delete. The article's SPA-written promotional content is another problem, which would need fixing (if sources could be found). The article does not take an uninvolved point of view, but describes the association from its own perspective. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2015 (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.