Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show of Arms

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show of Arms

Show of Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• DeleteReason JoeDeg31 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this page for promotion of this club. I believe that this subject is not worthy of a page of its own. Thus I am nominating my own page for deletion JoeDeg31 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebe0003 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received coverage in reliable sources. Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:As per Bharatiya29, there are coverage of the subject in the reliable sources cited here. Ayub407^talk 18:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Out of seven sources cited in the page only three are relevant. Two do not exist (reference 1 and 5); the group's web site is inactive for at least three years and abandoned half way through (reference 2); another link (reference 7) nowhere mentions the club in question and hence it is not proof of the subject's notoriety.JoeDeg31 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is here. Bharatiya29 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft & userfy as the best links I found were here and I'm not seeing much for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The question is whether this is a notable re-enactment group. Some re-enactment groups probably are notable; others probably not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G7. JoeDeg31 is the original author and only substantantial contributor. All edits since it was approved at AfC have been bots or bot-like, such as running ReFill on it. It isn't clear to me why Beeblebrox declined the G7. Joe followed procedure by blanking it to request a delete, so calling his action vandalism seems off the mark. Worldbruce (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2015 (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.