Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprockettes

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sprockettes (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)

I don't think this meets any of our notability criteria. There's no enough in-depth sources forWP:GNG, WP:NORG (as a group), or WP:NARTIST (as performers). The sources in the article are a) a blog entry from a local brewery b) a decent article from a local paper c) a couple-sentence fluff piece in NPR and d) a defunct biking enthusiast periodical (with a limited scope if it's the same one referred to here).

It's not enough to hang an article on, and I couldn't find any more in-depth sources when I searched. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails our notability requirements for organisations. I tagged this for dubious notability when I removed copyvio in 2015, and on looking again now still don't see it. There are two brief mentions in this book and a photograph in this one; there are a number of book mentions of other groups that have used the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2019 (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.