Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tummyrub (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 delete. Sandstein 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tummyrub

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

Previous incarnation of this article was deleted at AfD, but current existing incarnation has existed far too long to invoke CSD G4. No indication at all that this group satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was deleted at AfD on October 7, 2006 and recreated on October 9, 2006. Amazing how crap slips through the cracks. Safiel (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the PROD on the grounds that this subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines and that after a search I was unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. ManicSpider (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 19:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources which would evidence notability under GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Could even be a hoax maybe? Bazj (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (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.