Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samahang Kapatid (3rd 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Samahang Kapatid
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All available references (including those in the article, Google, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com) are trivial mentions, local performance listings of the "X will perform at Y community thing" variety, or dead unreliable blogs. Both previous AfDs were closed as no consensus over 8 years ago. Time for this to go. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * was kind enough to check Lexis, EBCO, and ProQuest for me and also found nothing substantive. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its a dance troupe. As dance troupes go it's got quite a lot of coverage.  We need to consider notability in context. Rathfelder (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it actually doesn't have "quite a lot of coverage". All of the sources in the article, and that I found in my search, are either unreliable blog-type publications, trivial name-drops, or local performance listings, none of which constitute the kind of coverage that demonstrates notability. Do you have any additional in-depth reliable sources that would actually demonstrate notability? If so, you should link them. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I have added a couple of references, one of which is an article written after a performance by the dance group, and the other a council award for Community Spirit. More than trivial, but only one in-depth. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those references are just as useless as the ones that were in the article when I AfD'd it. They're of exactly the same stripe. BakitWhy is hardly in-depth, the portion that's about them is three sentences stating that they performed. If that's the most in-depth thing anyone can find about them, they're clearly not notable enough for an article. Second, an award for Community Spirit from the city council of the village of Downers Grove, Illinois is hardly an indication of notability. It's cutesy local-recognition stuff, it means nothing. Finally, the reference from The Des Moines Register via Newspapers.com is literally a trivial name-drop of exactly the kind I called out in my nomination. None of these sources indicate any kind of notability, not even close. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2018 November 23
 * Delete – lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. I can't find anything except mentions in passing or community bulletin-type announcements, which are certainly not "in-depth". Brad  v  17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Bradv's and nom's rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:Reference bombed with mentions and sources with no mentions. A multitude of mentions does not substitute for two independent secondary sources that comment in depth on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough significant coverage for either WP:GNG or the heightened coverage we demand from WP:NORG. SportingFlyer  talk  07:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG, Does not have reliable coverage. Alex-h (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2018 (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.