Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa-Deuce

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 per WP:SK#1. A valid argument for deletion based upon Wikipedia guidelines or policies does not exist in the nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sa-Deuce

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

Unreferenced. (I am making no comment on notability - WP:DDC applies.) Laun chba ller 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard wrote quite extensively about their debut album (p. 18, 20); there are also reviews in Vibe [1], [2]. The band was active in the mid-1990s, today is defunct and the online coverage is rather sparse. G-books search provides some decent sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remind the nominator that "Unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion at AfD. "Unreferenceable" after an adequate search, on the other hand, that is a very good reason. There have been too many of such nominations. The correct procedure in dealing with an unreferenced article is to try to fix it. As even the nominator says, deletion is not for cleanup--this means that one should try to clean up an inadequate article first, improving it in particular by finding references, and only go to AfD if you find it impossible to adequately do so. This is not my field, but based on the material shown by Vejvančický, this merits a speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 (without prejudice against renomination on notability grounds), as the fact that an article is unreferenced is not an argument in itself for deletion. Vejvančický's sources clearly show that references are available to write an article for this subject. The purpose of deletion discussions is to discuss deletion. Deletion discussions are not to be used as a catalyst for cleanup, which is the position WP:DDC appears to be trying to advance. Mz7 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an admin just needs to make a decision based on the above - three arguments for keeping this and no follow-up from the nominator for either the nomination or by way of rebuttal. That's fine of course (nominators aren't required to campaign for deletion) but there really hasn't been a strong justification for deletion put forward. The sources provided above would seem adequate and none of them have been challenged against the terms of WP:GNG. Can someone just close this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:40, 2 September 2014 (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.