Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call 2 Win

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call 2 Win[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google search does not show substantial third party coverage. Google news search does not show any signficant coverage. The editor is "trying to get as many new articles created as possible." Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards deletion): I would think that the logical place to find independent coverage of television programs would be in the news, but a Google News search for "Call 2 Win" turns up absolutely nothing, and searching in archives turns up a mere one use of the term, completely unrelated to the show. This is a strong sign that there is no independent, significant coverage of the show. If the efforts of others to find independent sources are as fruitless as mine, I'll surely change my decision to delete. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails notability JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for this show which is just filler dreck. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just reads as a call-in contest which judging from the show's page, was not endorsed by CMT Canada outright and solely used paid commercial time to air, no better than any lawyer doing the same thing. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (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.