Deletion of Most Phallic Building contest

Comment: Phil Bridger has done an admirable job in trying to fix up the article by providing sources. However, none of the sources go very far in establishing notability. The ''Los Angeles Times'', for example, is a review of a book by Ames which mentions the contest only in passing. The same is true of the ''High Society'' book and the ''Esquire'' article. The sources from Ames's blog and Cabinet magazine are not independent of the subject, and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Certainly the best source in the article would be from the ''Kansas City Star''; if there were more like this, the article would be fine. But one good source along with several passing mentions and blog posts isn't enough to establish |notability, which requires "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This seems to meet otability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)