Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Gambler

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Gambler

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

This article is completely unsourced and there is nothing for it to indicate that it meet notability guidelines. Fails WP:BCAST Donnie Park (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, as while not completely unsourcable,[1] this 45 second safety film does not meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful metaphor and an entertaining public safety film. It now has ~~two~~ four sources. I would suggest there can be more. In any event, there has been no compliance with WP:Before, and this incessant serial relisting is a process in search of a particular result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not meet WP:NF, but that is not a good enough reason. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not difficult to find more sources such as this and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with pages like red light running. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 2 December 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.