Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bootmakers of Toronto


 * 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   no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bootmakers of Toronto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic does not seem to have encyclopedic merit TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detecting this unencyclopedic piece. So it has been around for two months? Speedily delete please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This probably could be speedied as pure unambiguous promotion. At the same time, I'm not really seeing where the organization has received enough coverage to really merit an article at this point in time. I did find this article, but other than that everything is predominantly done in passing. It's very, very close but we'd need more than this to really show a good depth of coverage. If someone can find it, I have no problem with the article being re-created, but this promotional version would have to go. On a side note, there is merit in potentially having an article on the Sherlock Holmes fanbase since they've been around in various forms for years now. I think that the only reason we don't have one is probably because they don't have a set name like Trekkies or Beliebers, so there's not a truly good article title. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The Sherlock Holmes Handbook is ample evidence of notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing.  The fact that the article has not be wikified into our customary format yet is unimportant.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly worried about there not really being a depth of coverage. There's mentions but the sources are fairly few and far between. It's the type of coverage that could muster up a weak keep but it's so little that someone could probably nominate it for deletion in the future because essentially we only have about 2-3 sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect and merge a little to either Sherlock Holmes or List of Sherlock Holmes societies. It doesn't really merit an standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:20, 26 July 2014 (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.