Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'Ginnings

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. The only keep vote was without arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B'Ginnings

B'Ginnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PROD was removed without explanation. Reliable sources to verify notability are lacking; the article is hardly neutral, of course. A list of famous bands (also lacking proper verification) that have played there may well suggest notability, but that's not how it works: we need discussion of the actual place in reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article is very good and there is no reason to delete it. It has already been here for years and it was a notable venue. It is simply difficult to dig up a lot of good references for a venue that has not existed for 35 years. Evangp (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we can verify the claim of "high profile national press coverage,(Variety, Billboard, Wall Street Journal)". Clubs that get local press are a dime a dozen. Ping me if such coverage can be varified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• D'leting: Obviously a labor of love by some fanboy SPAs, but no, this isn't a "very good" article; it's a bit of a namedropping suckfest. The sources run the gamut from casual mentions in interviews to blog posts to JPGs of posters to press releases to personal websites to broken links, but completely lacks (a) reliable sources that (b) describe the subject in any detail at all, never mind "significant" detail, and 35 years after the place closed, I kinda doubt we're seeing any. If the SPAs want to make a tribute Facebook page to the place, bless their hearts, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I am a staunch advocate to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Spiffy, we see that, but do you have any actual policy grounds you'd like to cite to support your POV? Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:39, 21 January 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.