Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brothers' Network

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers' Network

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

A monograph by an editor with no other contributions, flagged since creation as promotional, based on sources which do not seem to rise above the level of the trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. There are sources cited, some of them decent, but generally local-interest. A while back I removed large swaths of this article and tagged it as promotional, but refrained from nominating it for deletion due to the sourcing. Wikipedia will not be harmed if this article disappears, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and I would've said either draft/userfy or move elsewhere but there's no good target for this one; my searches found nothing outstanding with the best being this. Although the article is neat and sourced, this would've probably been best mentioned somewhere else until full notability and coverage is/was achieved. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Interesting local group, but does not seem to clear WP:ORG hurdles. References 1 & 4 - not about the subject, just one brief mention. References 2 & 8 (blog) - decent references. References 3, 5 & 6 - no mention of subject. References 7, 9 & 10 - short local event listings.--Rpclod (talk) 10:22, 14 July 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.