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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krewe of Armeinius[edit]

Krewe of Armeinius (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 tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:GROUP, also fails WP:GNG Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nomination. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an important secondary source to the article in support of the Krewe of Armeinius page. I hope this will help. Nilbogg (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have found and added some more references, and I think that the subject does meet WP:GNG. The book Unveiling the Muse certainly does have significant coverage of this krewe, as does the New Orleans Advocate article, and other articles include relevant information. I think that the article could use some editing - it doesn't really have a lede paragraph, and I'm not sure that so much background info is necessary when there is a WP article about krewes (but I have more experience with biographies than other kinds of article, so I may be wrong).

If the article is not kept, then it should not be deleted - even if this krewe is not considered notable on its own, the gay krewes in New Orleans certainly are, so a combined article on all of them would be preferable to deletion - but I believe that they are notable, this one certainly, so it should be kept. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources added during this discussion, (and Note that we do, unsurprisingly, have a large number of articles on these peculiar New Orleans institutions.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran a Proquest news archive searches, copous WP:SIGCOV going back decades, including enough reviews to give that film a page, and some of the reviews have SIGCOV of this krewe. Frankly, this was a WP:BEFORE fail, although it may not be entirely the fault of Nom, who may not have access to news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2019 (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.