Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dear Abbeys


 * 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. JBW (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Dear Abbeys

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am unable to find evidence in reliable, independent sources that covers this group. I might have merged this to Boston_University, but this type of content doesn't really appear there, and I'm not sure it would be DUE. Star  Mississippi  20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star   Mississippi  20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star   Mississippi  20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Star   Mississippi  20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as has lengthy reviews cited in the article as well as coverage in sources such as Boston Magazine here, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the vast majority of those are not independent as they're connected to BU, which the group is as well. Star   Mississippi  00:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Discarding the latest contribution which does not really add anything to consensus, we are split 1v1 (nominator v interested editor) with a disagreement on the independence/quality of the sourcing. Short of me super-voting, this debate needs more contributions to analyse the sourcing.
 * The article I cited is not from the university and the BARB review is independent and significant coverage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of the editor who wants this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most sources either primary or linked to their university, not demonstrating reliable, independent coverage Dexxtrall (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see any compelling claim of notability. Sources are all primary/linked or run of the mill. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I wasn't going to add an additional !vote, but Daniel's relist appears to be indicating that David's (!)vote is discounted, whereas to me it seems a clunky "per X" !vote, which is generally permitted. Atlantic's source definitely is suitable, but it is also the only one I could find - were there another, I'd flip my !vote to Keep. As it is, I don't believe notability is shown. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2021 (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.