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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDN Wrestling

[edit]

Page was originally tagged speedy delete, with the following comment: "nonsense (see references to "passionate gay affair," etc.); no notability asserted; fancruft; if for some reason it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (and I think it does), then could somebody please put it up for Articles for Deletion (I can't do so because I don't have an accont and am not going to make one.) Thanks." I am listing this purely as a maintenance task from CSD. Zsinj^Talk 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are unreferenced claims to notability which I am not sure are valid. If it was truely the longest running British TV show (which I doubt) it would be notable but it appears to be a local show with a very short life span.Peter Rehse 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Cleanup No references, badly written, listcruft, fancruft, POV and a borderline attack page. However, LDN does look borderline notable and appears to be shown on TWCFight! which is a national satellite channel (Sky Ch427 for those in the UK). EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentLDN has never ever been shown on TWCFight.---198.138.41.164 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it's on Sky TV's schedules - see here EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentSo what else isn't true? Is the whole article a hoax?Peter Rehse 09:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Send to cleanup" would do nothing, the article seems full of claims that aren't verifiable, and notability is questionable. Mango juice^talk 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm tempted to agree with you, however the national TV coverage gives it some notability. On the other hand, perhaps given the state of the article, deleting it might be the better route so it can be created properly from scratch. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that it's full of false information, and it seems spammy too. We shouldn't keep that kind of article around in the hopes of improvement without knowing someone is working on it. Mango juice^talk 14:48, 22 March 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.