Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Face Off (FIRST)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Face Off (FIRST)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, just drive-by tagging articles as "not notable" is not a constructive way to communicate with other editors. Are you claiming that For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) and the whole category tree is not notable? That this particular event is less notable than others? Or some other, as yet unspecified, reason? In its absence, keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is an article that's referenced entirely to the event's own self-published content about itself, with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about it in media shown at all. I do share Andy Dingley's concern about the nominator's inadequate rationale — an AFD nomination does have to be more detailed than that about how the topic isn't notable — but primary sources are not the way to get something like this into Wikipedia. Delete unless somebody can source it better than this — and preferably review the related articles to see if they're also sourced this badly or not. It is very possible that each individual event is not independently notable (or at least not adequately sourceable as such), and should thus exist only as a redirect to the parent article on FIRST Tech Challenge rather than as a badly sourced standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to redirect, since it is unlikely someone would search using this term and looking for this information. At best worth one line in the FIRST Tech Challenge . W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2016 (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.