Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FullTimeDevils

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. czar 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FullTimeDevils

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

Wikipedia isn't an advertisement service, which this article reads as. Terrible sources which do not highlight notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party independent sources that are significantly ABOUT the subject. What we have here are short news articles that mention the site's content related to some sports news. I don't see anything substantial. LaMona (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does get some trivial mentions from reliable sources but nothing significant enough to pass WP:GNG although I'm happy to be proved otherwise. Spiderone 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. there has been some minor coverage of a couple of episodes, but no real coverage on the channel as a whole. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (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.