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. The "keep" !votes were adequately refuted, and then not challenged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour Puss Studios Tap Dancing Academy (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 appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep True, there is very scant coverage. The current references, one dead, one does not even mention the subject unless "you know" who they are referring to, "you tube" does not count, one only names them. The Age references, however, should be highly reliable, and all but one, including one I added, are not trivial. There is some in depth coverage and it is sustained over a number of years, but with only several in total it is perhaps only just scraping over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the subject has significant coverage in reliable Australian sources such as The Age Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generally, multiple works from the same publication are considered a single source when it comes to judging notability (see WP:GNG, bullet point 3), so the sources from The Age aren't enough on their own. Even if they were to be taken separately, [1] and [2] cannot be considered in-depth sources. [3] is basically a local-flavor puff piece that's about 70% interview. [4] is more local flavor. Ironically, this one covering a lawsuit against the company is the most in-depth of the lot. In any case, without any significant, in-depth, independent coverage outside its area (or even outside one publication!) it badly flunks WP:AUD. There for sure isn't enough here for an WP:NCORP pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any case for WP:GNG is a contrived/technical case at best. Sources are very scant and there is no proper significant independent WP:RS. This is clearly not a significantly notable institution even in Australia. There is no long-term future for this article in WP, why try to construct a case for it to defer the inevitable? Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2019 (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.