Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Fetish Ball

: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. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[German Fetish Ball]]=

:{{la|German Fetish Ball}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Fetish_Ball Stats])

:({{Find sources|German Fetish Ball}})

Not notable: lacks multiple, independent reliable sources Greenmaven (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of coverage from multiple different independent reliable secondary sources, including: ({{Find sources|German Fetish Ball}}). — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, OK, maybe you could add some, because all I am seeing is their own website. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep I've added a few references from somewhat more mainstream publications, and an alternate name for the event that increases the hit count. Photos from the event are apparently included in several art books that Google understandably is not allowed to show me. The statement that it is one of the biggest is supported by references, and there's broad enough coverage that I believe it meets the general notability standard. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

: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.