Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate and Gin


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kate and Gin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just someone who appeared on Britain's Got Talent and didn't win. Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NN.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets criteria for inclusion (WP:BIO) per multiple dedicated non-trivial press appearances. Neıl 龱  22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, as the press appearances are all with regard to the appearance on Britain's Got Talent (excepting a pet food user profile(!)), wouldn't it be possible to dig up similar references for almost all of the acts in the show and therefore give them each their own page? Seems we're on that road already, I'm just seeking clarification. Mallocks (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: -- it's neither reliable nor notability-establishing, but this article is worth a read. (It definitely should not be added to the article). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - any article, sppof or otherwise, that spells irreparable "irrepairable" is rubbish by default (okay, I still laughed a bit) . Neıl 龱  11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a quick Google News search indicates several dozen hits in the last month. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per A. B. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets basic criteria of WP:N/WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, There are multiple reliable sources for this article to pass both WP:N and WP:BIO--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one off event, WP:RECENT. Sources aren't that great either.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Probably WP:N in terms of bringing an obscure sport to attention of a wide audience (millions) previously unaware of its existence, as evidenced by the comments in references & searches along lines of 'I've never seen anything like it'Drpeterbatesuk (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - No less notable that all of the other britains got talent losers and a lot of them have pages too. More unique and therefore notable than most of them aswell. Tresiden (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (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.