Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Stockyard Kilty Band

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Stockyard Kilty Band

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

Grade 4 bands not notable. James^x1 2345 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicago Highlanders Pipe Band.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that band is notable either. Most Grade 4 bands are pretty average, unless they have historical significance (which they don't appear to, but they might.) This is Chicago Highlanders and this is a very much more notable pipe band. There are literally thousands of these grade 4 bands, very few of which merit inclusion here. Sorry if you play pipes and I'm patronising you. James^x1 2345 16:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's an ancient pipe band, going for over 90 years. Certainly, as an organization, re the financials,age, could easily satisfy WP:ORG. scope_creep talk 16:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? ORG says nothing about the age of an organization, and I don't see any financial information in the article. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no notability demonstrated. If I came across it tagged with A7, I'd give it the axe. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2013 (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.