Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sacramento entertainers

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sacramento entertainers[edit]

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

Unsourced for more than four years, convert to a category. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no reason to delete is provided. See WP:CLN, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Warden (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep implies that my deletion nomination is in bad faith. I object to that. I explained why this should be deleted. Need I mention that it's been a BLP violation ever since its inception? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nomination doesn't advance arguments regarding topic notability itself, and instead, is based upon the current state of the article. An article being unsourced is not a valid criterion for deletion, per the criterion for deletion listed here: WP:DEL#REASON. It's likely that this article could easily be sourced with some basic research, as entertainers often receive a fair amount of press and news coverage. I'm making no implication here regarding any type of faith regarding the nominator; the nomination's rationale isn't policy based. Also, this is a useful, discriminate list with a well-defined focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've improved the layout of the article, and have added some references. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, as long as we are going to have list articles and we maintain any on entertainers then why no sac too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (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.