Deletion of The Durham Revue

Comment: Notability is not established, abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing tool. The conflict of interest of the article creator and his/her disregard for the NPOV policy is evident in the un-encyclopedic |peacock terms ("celebrated", "established and renowned", "award winning", ....) which pervade the text and are typical for promotional self-descriptions. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: for |failing to live up to |its own hype. There are quite a few sources, so |notability seemes assured... until you look through them and run a couple more searches for this club. Then the whole facade falls over; only a handful of those |sources actually ''mention'' the revue and (apart from the blog comments) those mentions are only in passing. The credit that the article gives for being a starting-point for writers, comedians, etc, etc, is unfortunately ignored by those people in question, too. One brief comparative look at The Oxford Revue and the Cambridge Footlights demonstrates that this group is not really in the same ballpark, certainly not as far as notable alumni are concerned. The Wp:COI|pretty obvious COI does not really help, either. Oh, and also... the Smirnoff Underbelly don't mention the award that it's claimed they won. I was considering a weak delete, but I think I've convinced myself otherwise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:RS)