Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Ban

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. BJ^Talk 19:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Ban

Contested PROD. Appears to be original research. No Google News, Books, or Scholar hits for "Rolling+Ban"+fish or "Rolling+Ban"+fishery. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be mentioned in relevant commercial fishing article and transwikied if someone wants to do that. But the terminology not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#!/bin/bash#######################################################################################

I am not certain that I understand the precise reason for the deletion suggestion. I am new to this entity.

The article details an approach , it is not research.`

It is a subject of significant import.

Any elaboration would be most appreciated.

Thank you.

    ArchbishopDamaskinosWasRight
###################################################################################################
###################################################################################################

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchnishopDamaskinosWasRight (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this out when nominating Levelism (AfD discussion) at AFD. The same applies there as here. There's no evidence to suggest that this is a real, documented, peer reviewed, and acknowledged part of human knowledge. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levelism. Searches analogous to the ones I described there met with the same lack of results in this case. This article also fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2009 (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.