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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tambourelli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; relies entirely on sources associated with subject. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG this sport has failed to achieve significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG with only primary sources and no WP:RS. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are few sources to support this article aside from the tambourelli.org links and I found nothing useful with Google US and Google UK news. However, I found this Detroit Free Press news article from 1903 that mentions "tambourelli" despite that this Wikipedia article claims it was started in the 1970s. Either way, there is nothing to support this article and it is an orphan so it wouldn't link to any other articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in sources means that this topic fails WP:GNG. Sailodge (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2012 (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.