Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ssignature (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 25 May 2007 (→‎[[Sweet Tea Queens]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sweet Tea Queens

Sweet Tea Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was originally deleted at AfD. DRV overturned in light of new evidence for notability. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete It qualifies for a G4 (re-creation of deleted material). Regards — The Sunshine Man 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... that argument was addressed and rebutted at the DRV. This isn't recreated in light of the new sources. Besides, even if it were the exact same article, DRV overturned those prior deletions. In fact, I'll strike that comment for you, as it makes very little sense, under the circumstances. Xoloz 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per concerns of DRV. Some notability is asserted in the sources found there, but I'm not certain if it's enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about makes it. BTLizard 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sweet Potato Queens since it is a chapter of that larger organisation. CIreland 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per CIreland sounds about right; the notability seems reasonable, but I'm not certain we need a separate article about a single chapter of the larger organization. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears notable, albiet marginally so. Sourcing seems sufficient. DES (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just as we delete any article about a local branch of a society unless it has attracted significant outside attention. The media sources are local, and only can show that they're known in and around Spartanberg. Most local units of a society are notable in their home towns. DGG 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*"""Keep""", as per my lengthy prior documented statements, under "separte" coverage since every "chapter" is considered "it's own" as I beleive that this group is copywrited and all logo's are trademarked. The Sweet Potato Queens gave the founding idea's, but if you read the "legal" information of each web site you will understand the differences and why Sweet Tea Queens is unique and should remain posted as such.

  • Merge A chapter of any organization is always considered "its own." No doubt every Masonic Lodge, each its own, in the country has this level of sources. But none of these sources suggest that the Sweet Tea Queens have any significance outside their region, therefore merge to Sweet Potato Queens, where the information is more likely to be found anyways. If every chapter is similarly autonomous then STQ are as representative as any chapter. More people will read about STQ in the SPQ article and they'll do it in a context that makes more sense. The picture can still be used to illustrate. The wiki is better organized, no information is lost. Everyone wins. --JayHenry 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! This organization is well known in both North and South Carolina, as per all documentation. I understand the above rational, TO A DEGREE. I truely believe this is UNIQUELY it's own. The Sweet Tea Queens built this foundation, that qualified it to be accepted under the stringent guidelines that Wikipedia has set forth. This is an "Encyclopedia". IN ALL encyclopedias' there are found NUMEROUS "regions" under "separate cover", "separate subject", even though they are peripherial to a stated subject; they are still listed. I understand that some think "everybody" wins. Personally, I think not. It is a discredit to The Sweet Tea Queens, any of the past, present, and certainly it's founder, by allowing this disbarment,or even any "attachment". Therefore, on it's own merit, structure, and strength, the article should not be merged; and should be allowed to remain. The web master should be allowed to place the original contents back in the article. Thank you for your time.
  • Keep The Sweet Tea Queens have appeared in Conde Naste's Travel & Leisure magazine, hardly a local publication. They are also aligned with a fund-raising drag queen organization in Denver, CO, called the "Denver Cylcle Sluts, once again, hardly from backwater South Carolina. They are called a "chapter" because the core ideas came from the Sweet Potato Queens author, so credit MUST be given, but are not one of the leagues and march to their own beat. Most "chapters" are comprised of a few women who meet at local restaurants and gossip, then once a year trek to Jackson, MS to walk in the Sweet Potato Queens parade. These women have their own float, parade in their own parades and have nothing to do with the Sweet Potato Queens, other than giving them a nod for inspiration.Ssignature 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sweet_Tea_Queens_(second_nomination)&oldid=133402595"