Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATBLA

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATBLA[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:COI. Original author has same name as article title, and has been blocked. Unable to locate third-party sources for this group. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event itself gets plenty of coverage. See this item from National Public Radio, for example or, as evidence of interest from outside the United States, this Toronto Star article. A username block is never in itself a valid reason for deletion, nor is conflict of interest. This search and this one may provide some additional references. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion generally, however I agree with you in this case. Thanks for finding those references, my search turned up nothing, and notability was my primary cause for concern. See the discussion on the original PROD. Given that this event has received coverage in notable media, I support keeping it. The article still reads like a promo and needs a rewrite though. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one in depth article, and several mentions in reliable source news publications. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - then where are they? All we have so far in the article is one little opinion piece on NPR which mentions this event (although not by this acronym) in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - unless somebody can find some substantial coverage and put it into the article, this one is failing verifiability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event/association (I believe they are the same) are mentioned in this San Francisco Chronicle article, plus the Toronto Star article mentioned above, and the searches referenced by Eastmain reveal more sources. I don't really want to pay to retrieve the Star article, but I could try to find it at one of the Toronto libraries. Like I commented before, the article needs to be rewritten, but the subject is notable. I was preferring to wait for consensus on this AfD discussion, but I could try to rewrite it beforehand instead. Also, perhaps the article should be renamed "At The Beach LA" since the subject is mentioned by that name, at least in the SF Chronicle article. Ivanvector (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) Keep - I once proposed the article for deletion but I was reluctant to do so; I was prompted to give the article a critical eye for COI reasons but the organization was interesting enough I had hoped to find sufficient coverage to show notability. When I couldn't find that I suggested it be deleted. Now that such coverage is found, I'm glad to say I can support its inclusion. The nominator above has withdrawn his deletion request by giving a Keep !vote, but as Orangemike has !voted to delete I don't think that qualifies for speedy keep. -- Atama頭 22:39, 19 November 2009 (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.