Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie Reds

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. Closing somewhat early as both editors have improved the article alot - All now pass GNG, (Thanks Tokyogirl79 + Wizardman) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Reds[edit]

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

Uses largely primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially I was going to suggest merging this into the main article for the Reds, but a search did bring up evidence of notability. It looks like they were recently given an exhibit at the CR Hall of Fame, which is a pretty big sign of notability, and I've found where they're mentioned in a few books as well and they've had a ton of local coverage. I know that local sources are depreciated by most editors, but they've gotten heavy and consistent coverage each year by Cincinnati Magazine, beyond the level that just anyone would get for a normal business or event. (In other words, it's not just routine coverage of local stuff.) I'm still digging for sources, but so far they do appear to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask for the applicable WikiProjects to help dig for sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the time of the nomination the article did not show notability through GNG, but that has since been resolved, and Tokyogirl's edits have fixed the issues with the article that were noted above. Wizardman 01:34, 23 February 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.