::And if you could find [[WP:GNG|significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject]] for the Saddleworth Plasterer, then he would be presumed [[WP:N|notable]] enough for his own article. We don't go by some abstract notion of what ought to be notable, we go by what multiple independent sources think notable enough to give significant coverage to. [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Cribb|talk]]) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::And if you could find [[WP:GNG|significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject]] for the Saddleworth Plasterer, then he would be presumed [[WP:N|notable]] enough for his own article. We don't go by some abstract notion of what ought to be notable, we go by what multiple independent sources think notable enough to give significant coverage to. [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Cribb|talk]]) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm still waiting to see what these mysterious independent reliable sources are that you believe have significantly covered these Morris men. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm still waiting to see what these mysterious independent reliable sources are that you believe have significantly covered these Morris men. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If that was addressed to me, then I refer you to my comment above datestamped 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC). [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Cribb|talk]]) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If that was addressed to me, then I refer you to my comment above datestamped 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC). [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Cribb|talk]]) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::If it had been addressed to you then I would have addressed it to you. It's quite clear that you don't really understand sourcing at all. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts|list of Arts-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts|list of Arts-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
No indication of the subject's notability. MalleusFatuorum 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely the question is whether evidence of notability exists? There are 13 hits on Google News, including national newspapers, and nine on Google Books. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been flagged with a {{Notability}} tag since September 2008 and none has been produced. Have you actually read any of those Google Books links? Here's a one example, a footnote from page 225 of Dancing from past to present: nation, culture, identities (2007) : "Saddleworth Morris Team member interviewed on ITV television program Second Tuesday, 1984. It should be recognized, however, that not all views expressed in this program were genuinely held." That's all it has to say, nothing else. MalleusFatuorum 16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment is not normally regarded as an argument for deletion -- see WP:NOEFFORT. It is, however, an argument for making an effort to find some sources. Your second seems to argue that because one source is not significant then all others cannot be. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, yes I had read that source on Gbooks. It's a footnote referring back to a page that isn't available, so it is not actually possible from Gbooks to say what coverage that source might or might not have. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point; that coverage wasn't of the Saddleworth Morris Men, but the reporting of a comment made by a member of the Saddleworth Morris Men on a local TV program. Are you arguing that the other GBook hits are more substantial? I can't see it myself. MalleusFatuorum
My point is that when there is prima facie evidence of notability, such as ghits on Books and News, it is necessary to address them, rather than argue, as you seem to be doing, that if there were evidence then someone else would have added it by now. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying quite clearly that there is no evidence of notability, and you certainly haven't produced any. How much more clearly can it be said? MalleusFatuorum 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a clearer statement. The initial nomination saying "no indication" I took to refer to the article, rather than to the universe at large. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my fault then, I ought to have been clearer. MalleusFatuorum 17:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added eight references to the article which in my view are sufficient for notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number of references is immaterial. You need to provide reliable sources that do two things; support the facts and the notability of this group. Let's take the very first for instance, [1] which is supporting the assertion that "They were formed in 1974 and revived a tradition of Morris dancing in the area that dates back centuries". In fact all the source says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974. MalleusFatuorum 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, in what way does that citation, which incidentally I did not add, fail to support the wording in the article, and what does it have to do with this discussion anyway? Secondly, notability guidelines talk of "multiple" sources, so multiplicity is indeed material. Thirdly, I don't "need" to do anything. Like you and everyone else I'm a volunteer. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me spell it out for you; the only assertion here is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974, not that they revived anything. In what way does that make them notable? MalleusFatuorum 21:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, and I didn't say that it did. I say that the eight references I added between them constitute sufficient indication of notability. To take the one I did not add, and say, correctly, that it does not by itself support notability, is quite beside the point. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of them do, which is my point. MalleusFatuorum 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and no doubt other readers, including the closing admin, will give it the weight it deserves. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously that's my opinion, so what are you trying to add by saying that "the closing admin, will give it the weight it deserves"? Other than trying to persuade others than my opinion is worth less yours? MalleusFatuorum 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words into my mouth: I am making no such suggestion. What I am suggesting is that I have given my opinion on whether these sources demonstrate notability, you have given yours, the points have been adequately clarified for the benefit of others, and that further discussion on this precise issue will probably generate more heat than light. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them. Where in this does it support "The very first members of the team were ... David Lees, Len Butterworth, Dave Caddick, Ron Yates, John Dunning, & Allan (Fred) Broadbent. The idea to start a Morris Dancing side in Saddleworth was borne out of a conversation with friends in a local pub." All it says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men practice at the pub on a Thursday night. The article is about the pub, not the Morris men. MalleusFatuorum 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this criticism is justified, it is a matter of common-or-garden editing and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the article should be kept or deleted. It is also phrased in an unnecessarily accusatory tone. Please do not disrupt this discussion with such comments. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been either incompetently or dishonestly adding almost random citations to make it look as if the material has been properly sourced when it hasn't been, and can't be. Here's another example: neither of the two citations given towards the end of the third paragraph support anything in that paragraph. MalleusFatuorum 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample indications of the topic's notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a side that has being going since at least 1974, and responsible for the revival of the Rushcart festival, a peasant tradition that goes back to 1380.Ideal footwear for giving a poor article a good kicking. It gives a good opportunity for linking to many folk song and dance terms such as Long Sword dance which is of course the symbol of the EFDSS with links to Cecil Sharp.. And there are more of them than in other entertainment groups say Rolling Stones. It could do with a ce, and the links picked out. If folk traditions are to be taken seriously then setting up a category tree may be a way forward and the relevant sides contacted, to see if they would contribute first to a list page, and then select from these entries, sides notable enough for their own articles.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided The way the article is currently structured, it could be about anything. I could replace "Morris Men" with "Plasterer", and write about how the Saddleworth Plasterer drives a Ford Transit, and how his first job was to plaster the local vicar's house. What exactly is notable about them? Parrotof Doom 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to see what these mysterious independent reliable sources are that you believe have significantly covered these Morris men. MalleusFatuorum 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that was addressed to me, then I refer you to my comment above datestamped 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been addressed to you then I would have addressed it to you. It's quite clear that you don't really understand sourcing at all. MalleusFatuorum 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]