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. J04n(talk page) 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Wall Comedy Empire

[edit]

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

seems to fail Notability test, but giving it a little time to see if updated. Jab843 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not-notable and non-neutral. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Feel free to update your thoughts, in light of revisions to the article that I believe address your concerns. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage -- some is passing, but some is focused on the comedy club. Certainly enough to pass GNG. Have added some refs. Also -- as now indicated, the club is reported on under a second name as well. Other text problems were not reason for deletion, and have been addressed in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A huge wall of sources actually works against the article as most of them are just passing mentions or community-calendar stuff, but there's a few that look reliable and do seem to confirm basic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good enough coverage for GNG, however it does need a cleanup of references as there is virtually WP:UNDUE on the reference section alone. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2013 (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.