Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level Renner

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level Renner[edit]

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

A running (athletics) magazine found during NPP which I tried unsuccessfully to source. Basically, little to zero third-party references or coverage to be found. It's fairly easy to establish notability for a publication (e.g. Backpacking Light Magazine), but this one doesn't seem to pass muster. Also, it seems to be self published. The one reference I did find at first glance seemed valid but later I realized by its tone and "guest author" that it was probably written by the same person who created the article. COI and quality issues aside, I think this fails WP:GNG and the guidelines at WP:NMAGAZINE. §FreeRangeFrog 19:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, I just don't see the references. Fails WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had PRODded this earlier, but the tag was removed by the article creator. Apparently some local magazine, not a shred of evidence that there are sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you've tried and failed to get good sources, there's not much chance that someone else will, and publications started in 2011 are very unlikely to be covered only in dead-tree sources. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 27 November 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.