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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Closing per WP:Speedy Keep. Greedo8 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Gaylords (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)

Fails Wikipedia standards for notablity. Seems full of original research, and I was unable to find reliable sources that verified the content. Greedo8 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator Withdrawn due to discovery of adequate sources. Greedo8 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty significant number of sources substantiating much of what I read, far more references than many articles on here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not quite sure why nom couldn't find sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per sources already shown here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikimandia has provided the sources to establish notability. The article as it stands could use work, but that does not merit deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Props to Wikimandia for the excellent source finds, particularly #1 and #4. Greedo8 20:17, 2 June 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.