Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back of the Throat

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Throat

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

Declining speedy A7 (not eligible), but this does seem to be a non-notable play. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, and you get results straight away, reviewing the play. Dream Focus 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Keep: OK, I did the heavy lifting and added the sources and additional content. Close this sucker.--Milowent (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 29 May 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.