Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mascots (2nd nomination)

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. No valid reason for deletion anyway (WP:CRUFT is an essay, and it's not clear how it applies here either) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mascots[edit]

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

WP:CRUFT magnet, broken beyond repair, may never be able to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 13:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What has changed since you last nominated this a few months ago? Have you tried to fix anyting? I grant that there are no firm thresholds before renomination, but absent a change in a guideline, policy, or the content of the article in question, the same nominator renominating an article with no new or updated rationale is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mascots and subcategories therein. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The article can be copy edited to address concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the non-notable entities. Looks like it could be somewhat useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:05, 9 October 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.