Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Star Writers Group (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. Article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

North Star Writers Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable now-defunct syndicate. While it had a handful of notable writers, it does not appear that the syndicate itself ever received any coverage outside of press releases. Original closure was a non-admin closure. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources being available to improve the article. It not being done does not equate to a deletion rationale. The previous non-admin close was not flawed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the specific sources about the group? Google searches are not sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You might say "All writers syndicates will have Google Hits, since their name is included in the bylines of their published articles as a matter of regular business. But Wikipedia only covers notable writers syndicates. What shows this to be notable compared to any other writers syndicate?" -- Green  C  12:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 13:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per MQS - There's lots of sources that can used!, - Once this is kept you would need to click on every one of those links and add it to the article. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:01, 24 February 2015 (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.