Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bboyworld

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. Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bboyworld

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

Not a notable organization. There are no significant coverage of reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP KingAndGod 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just seems to scrape WP:GNG - I've seen better referencing, but I think it's notable for the events it organises if nothing else. The article tone could be improved, but I don't quite think deletion is warrented here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources in the article don't discuss the subject significantly. KingAndGod 12:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: which sources demonstrate GNG is met? SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided (as well as my own searches) do not indicate that WP:NWEB or WP:GNG is met. All I can find is very brief mentions in passing. In addition, the article is so promotional that WP:TNT would be in order, even if it were notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (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.