Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Park

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant Park

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable and my searches found nothing to suggest meaningful improvement, here, here, here and here, and mostly results that seem based from this including the first Books result which is a mirror. This has existed since September 2006 and has hardly gotten worthwhile improvement and there's probably no signs of improvement happening. Pinging the only seemingly interested user Mr. Stradivarius. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY - no reliable sources/independent, in-depth coverage in sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage from secondary sources. [1][2] However Re-write due to WP:COPYVIO of the first source which is currently copied verbatim. --Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found two good books talking up the club in just two pages of google hits. Added basic templates and the books to the page - being neglected isn't a good reason for deletion. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 22 September 2015 (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.