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, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Knights[edit]

Seattle Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previously A7 speedy deleted, back now with more links, but still just does not appear to me to rise to the level of notability. AFD this time instead of speedy to let others agree or disagree. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Advertisement.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - with a complete rewrite to eliminate all the puffery and advertising. They have been featured in the Seattle Times, along with some other very minor coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not so speedy. If some of the claims in the article were properly cited then they might be notable enough to deserve an article. However, as the article is written right now it's clearly a copy-paste job from a promotional piece, though I googled a couple phrases and couldn't come up with anything. The added "citations" are not sources for the "facts" they proport to cite. Give the author and/or other editors a few days to try to clean up the article. Livitup (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Changing my vote as I have worked with the article's creator to turn this into a real encyclopedia article. Not that it can't be expanded a lot more, but it's at least encyclopedic at this point. Livitup (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to this. Guess I just write too puffy. (Used to do volunteer PR for Girl Scouts, and still in this mode). There is more news coverage. In process of contacting the Seattle Knights for more information. Does the television and screen credit help notability? What else should be there? More television/screen? (That seems superficial to me, so trying to look up other things on wikipedia for clues as to what makes it notable).TexasAndroid, when you first said it looked like a club , although they are not a club, I decided to look up clubs, namely the SCA, to see what I had done wrong. How is it the SCA gained notability, and avoided deletion under the "club" category? I am asking that some other savvy people help with the rewrite. Please bear with me (and advise, please - I really appreciate it). Also, RE: the recent updates, is that going in the correct direction? PSQ (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I'm working with PSQ to see if we can't do something with this article before it gets deleted. Livitup (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The troupe is locally well known, and the cites included seem establish wider notability. Does need to be rewritten, though. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (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.