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. Redirection does not strike me as useful, but can always be done editorially.  Sandstein  05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign object (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I PRODed this which was removed by an IP. Although the IP made good effort to add sources, they are all niche publications, and all not terribly prominent in mention (except for one source). Doesn't meet GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merging the relevant information to List of professional wrestling terms would be a good idea if this article is to be deleted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. There is no sourced information to merge, and it can always be added to the glossary when sources are provided. Nikki♥311 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or weak redirect Not really a justification for a separate article since the general meaning is the same in or out of wrestling. Not sure a redirect is going to serve much purpose, but can be justified more than an article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete not enough sourcing to show this is notable enough to warrant extensive coverage outside the list of terms or general wrestling articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 4 April 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.