Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footworkin

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. Sandstein 05:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footworkin

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

Orphaned since its creation in 2007, no reliable sources, I can find no reliable sources which use this term. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. Existing (not inline) references very vague, one is a dead link (I just checked it). 10:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) -- preceding comment added by SimonTrew (talk · contribs)

Weak Keep Seems to be fairly large number of ghits which would be used to establish notability and sources. scope_creep (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS? I can't find any. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it , fails WP:V and WP:N. Existing (not inline) references very vague, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.170.99 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, quite non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (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.