Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PickUp 101 (2nd nomination)

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. Wifione ^Message 11:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PickUp 101

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Third party refs are passing mentions. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems well enough sourced to me. Specs112 t c 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that at least two of the four current references are passing mentions. They fail the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:N. The Strauss book is not independent, so I don't believe it should be used to determine notability. Of the three remaining, they're all puff pieces that demonstrate little notability beyond that at one time the company did enough marketing to get some notice. The San Francisco Magazine has slightly more information than the other two, but it's still little more than a blip of local interest. --
talk) 20:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 3 suitable sources, each with suitable coverage. Could not evaluate the 4th. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blurpeace 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there are only 4 sources, they are all credible, reliable, and independent. --MMMMadManiac (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked at sources so far included: all passing mentions but 1, and not sure of the 4th source's reliability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (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.