Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colts Drum and Bugle Corps

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. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colts Drum and Bugle Corps

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability, merely supporting existence. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is actually pretty typical of the articles in this walled DCI garden, and I'll refrain from pruning it for the sake of demonstration. From the top, there is the ridiculous amount of detail in the history, another excessively detailed "sponsorship" section with primary (directory) links, the over-the-top "show summary" in all its detailed glory and no more verification than a link to the DCI, and an EL section with an alumni page and a DCI (spam) link. No, this needs to go. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bgsu98 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC) The history was excessive and overly detailed, so I trimmed it down considerably. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good argument why this should be kept; and the article as it stands is a pretty clear example of poorly sourced FANCRUFT based on sources of dubious independence. Most of the content also fails
WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 26 October 2021 (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.