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 seems to have already been deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2.21.11[edit]

WWE 2.21.11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Very few references and I don't think that a promotion for WWE warrants an individual article TehMissingLink ^Talk 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, distinctly unencyclopaedic and vague. I am slightly puzzled as to how an article so woolly has such a precise title. I can't see many people searching for this. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a smimilar article WWE 2-21-11 has already been deleted and I don't think that this one is any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.180.54 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is an article about an advert, it would have to be a particularly significant advert to be notablr, it is not. MLA (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete An article about a 30-second promo for a weekly series is always unnotable. Should've never been created in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 09:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no way a run of the mill WWE promo requires a WP article. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Clearly non-notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 20 February 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.