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 redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Consensus seems clear that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to support having a standalone article. clpo13_(talk) 03:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A new editor is objecting to my merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Insufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail general notabilityt guideline particularly on third party reliable sources. The coverage might be available, but as written I don't see it. Maybe userify is the option or editing. If it's deleted, I wouldn't oppose re-creqation once the article is better sourced. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about personally doing the research, but if it were introduced and presented I would have no problem changing my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's hard to evaluate some of the sources, like the Vickers text, which doesn't have an online link. Others, like the Kansas Humanities Council link, have suffered link rot. The DCXMuseum link is just scores—routine coverage per WP:GNG.
  What I keep wrestling with is that this would be enough coverage for an active corps, and notability is not temporary. So that's why I'm leaning keep.
  In any case, deletion is the worst possible outcome for the article. I would rather see it sent to draft space for incubation, with a redirect preserved to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps and the merged material there preserved, than to have it deleted outright. (Note: File:Argonnelogo.jpg should also be moved, and have its rationale moved, to the list if this article goes out of mainspace.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) !vote superseded 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment about non-free content use since moving the infobox image was mentioned above. There would be pretty much no way to justify the infobox image’s non-free use in the list article per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS and it’s unlikely a consensus could be established to do so at WP:FFD. So, if the consensus here is to redirect or merge into this to list article, the image shouldn’t be moved along with it. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly: Thanks for the heads-up about that. I just nominated about a half-dozen other logos from the list article through FFD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article should be tagged for cleanup, not deleted per Introduction to deletion process. The shortcomings of the Argonne article pointed out by contributors to this page (e.g., ‘link rot’) are valid, and can be addressed It is possible that sufficient coverage can be found to keep this page as a stand-alone.Pommerenke (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further input from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep history; merge content into and turn page into redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. After reviewing things the past several days, I am convinced that this corps does not need a stand-alone article. However, information about it should be merged into the list article on defunct DCI corps, and we should keep the edit history of this page for edit reasons. Notionally, that's a keep outcome, but I want to make it clear that I do not think that this article should survive as a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: this discussion was canvassed on a Facebook group with a clear pro-Argonne position; I personally viewed the post, which encouraged people to come here and stack the !vote. See WP:CANVASS. Therefore, I have semi-protected this discussion to prevent further disruption, and will move all non-autoconfirmed contributions to the talk page hat all non-autoconfirmed contributions above. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content moved. Daniel (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Content hatted. Daniel (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps for now (assuming that list meets WP:NLIST). There are five sources in this article and four of them are not reliable, independent, secondary sources. The only source that could be (A History of Drum & Bugle Corps) is not easily accessible so I can't say if it gives it WP:SIGCOV. Anyway, its just one source, and WP:GNG requires multiple.VR _talk 04:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above comments which make a lot of sense. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect Notable enough for mention in the list, not notable enough for it's own article. BSMRD (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources aren't great, but [1], coverage in Emporia Gazette and a few similar articles indicate that there is wider coverage. Nothing great and nothing new, but still above the WP:N bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as proposed above. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources in the article or in searches. What is available to be examined that is reliable is either not significant or not reliable and vice-versa. The sources presented since this discussion began are not convincing evidence of WP:N, being either the blog of a humanities council or very local coverage, but they are enough to preserve the edit history through redirecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.dci.org/news/argonne-rebels-subject-of-new-smithsonian-exhibit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonne73 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - sourcing appears to largely be passing or trivial local coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Miniapolis 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, I guess. I think we're ready for closing. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2021 (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.