Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upward Sports


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk)

Upward Sports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, also pretty promotional Had notability and advert tag on for 5 years, time to sort it out. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I could find a few mentions of it in some small newspapers, nothing indicated WP:ORGDEPTH. Agree with nom on WP:PROMO issues. Bordwall( talk &frasl; ctrb ) 17:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Not notable. Fails per WP:CHRISTIANITY and per WP:SPORT. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The two links you provide above are just links to the main pages of WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Sports, which are not notability guideline pages. North America1000 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll try to remember that. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is your basis for article deletion, besides "not notable". Did you read any of the sources I provided below? North America1000 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Then I'll change my vote to keep. I'll need to pay more attention next time maybe do some research perhaps. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have struck your initial delete !vote above, to prevent any confusion for the closer of this discussion. North America1000 03:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Certainly passes WP:ORGDEPTH, having received significant independent nationwide coverage in various U.S. newspapers. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , , , , , , . North America1000 00:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A plethora of reliable sources now found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 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.