Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Talker Tour

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker Tour[edit]

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

No evidence that this venue listing article has any value or notability. Only two refs one of which is an own web-site and the other an apology for not appearing. Hardly the stuff of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources and depth of coverage. Knox490 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve Although the page itself only uses two sources, there are actually quite a few sources that reference the Sweet Talker Tour even with just a cursory search on Google. The page is written poorly and they don't use the requisite sources, but, with improvement, it certainly passes WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search turns up lots of Daily Mail material which I understand is not considered a RS. Gab4gab (talk) 15:26, 29 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.