- 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 Move to draft space. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 08:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- SwimSwam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website, fails WP:GNG. The only current source which comes near to substantial coverage is an article in the Austin American-Statesman, which looks very local. Note that the article was created by User:WadeDeadpoolWilson, a single-purpose account who created a draft in 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwimSwam. In Jan 2014 the AFC was declined as non-notable by User:Tokyogirl79, and WadeDeadpoolWilson did not edit again until today, when they created this article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: This is not a notable company or organisation that did not pass WP:AfC due to lack of independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure if it's a WP:COI issue, the evidence suggests that the user is just interested in swimming. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all. I'm trying to get my feet under me with this wiki stuff. Did I do something wrong with the creation process on this page? WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)WadeDeadpoolWilson[reply]
- Move to draftspace – benefit of the doubt. ProgrammingGeek talktome 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Draft space, per ProgrammingGeek. I also note that if the creator had been more savvy as to Wikipedia's procedures, they could have simply requested a WP:REFUND of the original G13'd draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated to include further sources and emphasize the notability. As I understand it, the prior draft needed more sources reporting directly on SwimSwam itself? The page now includes multiple such sources, including NBC Olympics. As it seems to be pretty rare for news media to report on one another, I can't imagine other similar companies having more sourcing when their wiki pages were created. If there's more editing needed, let me know. I'm a big follower of swimming and was surprised there wasn't a SwimSwam page, as they're basically the hub of all swimming news. I'd like to include more of their award winners and rankings and use that info to beef up pages for specific athletes and meets, but I'll wait until we get the page creation stuff sorted out before I jump to that. Thanks!! WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify – Rather obvious, given the fact that it was previously a draft. J947(c) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WadeDeadpoolWilson's statement that SwimSwam is a key swimming news website. Their Swammy Awards receive more independent coverage than the site itself does, and are referenced on multiple swimmer's articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Swammy+award. I'd be happy with move to draftspace. Sportygeek (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The first four sufficiently demonstrate notability. Draft is pointless, the page is beyond the drafting stage. It's now or never. There are no expected new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2017 (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.