Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The canary press

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The canary press[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose editor. I found nothing in major Australian news sites news.com.au and abc.net.au LibStar (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too young to have become notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RK, too young, failing WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indeed seems to fail CORPDEPTH/GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:17, 8 May 2014 (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.