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. Tons of results on Google so can easily pass GNG, Plus it's been expanded since nomination so closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Body Gossip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject does not have significant coverage (although as has been noted has had some press 'mentions'). Fails WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BEFORE applies here. A search on Google finds plenty of sources to meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the article a little already and there are certainly many stubs that don't have as many references, from different sources, as this one. JezGrove (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (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.