Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Gay Men's Chorus


 * 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 per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Gay Men&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. This was previously speedily deleted as lacking any assertion of notability (A7) but that deletion was overturned at Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18. Submitting for discussion here at AfD. Shereth 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) *Delete Research pulls up very little to confirm notability. Keep I stand corrected, as per research findings cited below. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as... well, as a mess really! The article needs substantial formatting and copyediting - that alone is not a valid reason to delete, I know, but when combined with the fact that the article is completely unreferenced, making any assertations of notability meaningless (not that I could see any assertations of notability) it makes me think that Wikipedia wouldn't really suffer without the inclusion of this article! :-) --  JediLofty UserTalk 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources.  --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and format — As said above, the article gets reliable hits, and said earlier, it needs formatting. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I have added some sources and links to the article to establish this and done a little bit of wikifying. It needs a lot of clean up and pruning but does appear to be a notable topic so we should have an article on them. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability seems to have been addressed, leaving only cleanup issues. MrPrada (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per cleanup, sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or source - in its current form, blatantly fails verifibility tests: the current "sourcing" is for things like a "what to do in CT this weekend" guide listing in the NY Times, plus a boatload of unsourced claims. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not all the coverage is "what to do". This is quite a lengthy piece about them in the New York Times, as is this one in the New Haven Register. (I have a subscription to Highbeam research.) Yes the article needs work, more citations and better formatting, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. And to say it blatantly fails WP:V is quite an exaggeration as are several of the Citation needed tags which have been added.Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2008 (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.