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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian tennis

[edit]

It matters not whether I flagged this five minutes or five hours after it was posted, it is a pure case of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- RHaworth 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Also Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up with your buddies--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. brazilian tennis is indeed notable and verifiable with 24 active players, a slew of fans, a governing body and over 500 recorded games. what is the timeline for deletion? MrGears 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i hereby request an extention before this article is deleted. the IBTA is working on a media hit as we speak. a media hit will justify notability. MrGears 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a joke, right? You're pulling our leg on that. You cannot be serious. I have never seen a keep vote make a better pro-deletion arguement in my life. That is great. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Unverifiable. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF, not opposed to recreation after "media hit". — MusicMaker 5376 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources -- Whpq 16:06, 23 October 2007 (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.