Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinthian ProStars
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 15 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 04:18, 15 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Courcelles 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corinthian ProStars[edit]
- Corinthian ProStars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any significant coverage about this line of collectable football figures. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011
- Delete I tried to find something to redirect it to, but nothing seemed appropriate. I note that this article is a contested prod, and that the related articles Corinthian Microstars and Corinthian Headliners actually were prodded recently. The argument for contesting the prod of this one was "I personally think that Wikipedia should have a page on the CorinthianProStars because there is not much coverage on the internet relating to this subject and as an avid follower of the ProStars it would be a shame to see it go." Not a valid reason to keep, and in fact "there is not much coverage" seems like an admission of non-notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (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.