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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand opening (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)

Unencyclopedic. There's no set way to run a grand opening, so most of the hits are to companies that will run them for a client. The talk page indicates that there may also be a problem where the definition in the first paragraph is actually a better definition for the second. Unsourced for nine years. WP:TNT may be necessary in order to have a starting point for a new article. MSJapan (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Obviously I agree. The article can easily be expanded and improved per available sources that cover the topic and term. Thing is, it takes a bunch of time to refute deletion nominations, which takes away from time that could be spent improving articles. Then, there's the catch-22 and potential vicious circle of working on an article that is nominated for deletion; why waste time on an article that could potentially still be deleted? See also: chicken or the egg. If the article is retained, then I may work to improve it. North America1000 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are excellent points. For editors who have no personal stake in a subject, PROD and AfD tags definitely serve as a disincentive with respect to article improvement. I certainly appreciate your efforts at AfD to demonstrate the notability of articles that have been nominated for deletion, and I am sure other editors feel the same way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you and would also like to spend more of my time improving articles. A deprodded article like this normally enjoys some measure of immunity as it cannot be prodded again. However, my deprods lately seem to be subject to a spat of overzealous deletion by a certain editor. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 23 June 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.