Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two c's in a k

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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two c's in a k[edit]

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

Lacks notability and encyclopedic value. TheDracologist (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact the 2nd nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Cunts in a Kitchen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the four citations, one is a list in The Guardian, another is dialogue between fictional characters, and a third is a website called Your Mum. I'd also like to ask someone to check the Danse Macabre citation for me because I don't have access to it. Google searches of "Two C's in a K" and "Two cunts in a kitchen" yielded no other sources, unless you count TV Tropes and Urban Dictionary. I therefore believe that this article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. TheDracologist (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One item in a list does not count as significant coverage and the Danse Macabre citation is likely to be nothing more than a passing mention. The fictional dialogue also seems to be a passing mention from the information provided. The subject of this article has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. TheDracologist (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 2 April 2017 (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.