Reason: Non-notable street, two of the sources are tangential mention of the prices, and the presence of modeling doesn't add much in the way of notability.
Reason: Article is almost exclusively a summary of the book, with disproportionate weight given to analysis and summary of one chapter. Only two third-party sources that discuss the book, and only one is related to the book - the other is an article that cites this book.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG - of the sources listed, one doesn't mention the name (only mentions a location), the other appears to be a user-submission site and so isn't reliable.
Reason: Only content is placeholders for the results of a future sporting event, no external coverage of the event. Recommend deletion without prejudice to recreation once there's secondary coverage and/or the event takes place.
Reason: Non-notable living person. All significant edits have been from single-purpose accounts who seem connected to the subject. No reliable sources in the article, and a BEFORE search didn't turn up anything either.
Reason:
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG fail - almost all of the roles seem to be small parts, not sufficient to pass NACTOR, and
WP:BEFORE did not turn up significant reliable coverage of him in reviews or other sources.
Reason: Written like a product brochure, sources are fairly trivial coverage, BEFORE turns up a lot of entries in comparison lists from blogs but basically no SIGCOV in RS.
Reason: Sourced only to the "movement's" website, couldn't find any third-party coverage (or even proof of its existence other than its website, Facebook, and Twitter)
Reason: Non-notable street, two of the sources are tangential mention of the prices, and the presence of modeling doesn't add much in the way of notability.
Reason: Article is almost exclusively a summary of the book, with disproportionate weight given to analysis and summary of one chapter. Only two third-party sources that discuss the book, and only one is related to the book - the other is an article that cites this book.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG - of the sources listed, one doesn't mention the name (only mentions a location), the other appears to be a user-submission site and so isn't reliable.
Reason: Only content is placeholders for the results of a future sporting event, no external coverage of the event. Recommend deletion without prejudice to recreation once there's secondary coverage and/or the event takes place.
Reason: Non-notable living person. All significant edits have been from single-purpose accounts who seem connected to the subject. No reliable sources in the article, and a BEFORE search didn't turn up anything either.
Reason:
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG fail - almost all of the roles seem to be small parts, not sufficient to pass NACTOR, and
WP:BEFORE did not turn up significant reliable coverage of him in reviews or other sources.
Reason: Written like a product brochure, sources are fairly trivial coverage, BEFORE turns up a lot of entries in comparison lists from blogs but basically no SIGCOV in RS.
Reason: Sourced only to the "movement's" website, couldn't find any third-party coverage (or even proof of its existence other than its website, Facebook, and Twitter)