Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boots and Saddles (bugle call)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boots and Saddles (bugle call)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Some minor mentions in niche publications, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: Can you describe the "niche publications" that you discovered in your WP:BEFORE search? If you're referring to The Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Land Warfare: An Illustrated World View and Transactions of the Philological Society currently cited in the article, then I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss reliable published sources as "niche publications", simply because you're not familiar with them. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Toughpigs. There were a few, including those you've mentioned and others like Soldier Life in the Union and Confederate Armies which weren't mentioned in the article. I don't mean anything negative by niche, and I did not mean that I was unfamiliar with the books, just that they 'appeal to a small, specialized section of the population' and a small mention in a publication like this may make a topic appear more noteworthy than it is, as the book is highly specialised. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a number of other sources that clearly demonstrate notability. It is a famous bugle call that has been used for hundreds of years. I suspect that a proper BEFORE search was not performed. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability and encyclopedic relevance are demonstrated in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination happy to go with the developing consensus above. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.