Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestle Zone Wrestling

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 no consensus and a special note to Curse of Fenric that he restrict his comments in any future discussions to the article being discussed rather than attacking the nominator (per WP:NPA and WP:AGF). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestle Zone Wrestling

Wrestle Zone Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP and WP:V BooyakaDell 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Major UK promotion, one of the largest drawing ones. Far outdraws many American promotions, which curiously aren't nominated for deletion. Which parts of the article need verifying? 81.155.178.248 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• All of it. MER-C 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - "Wrestle Zone Wrestling (wZw) is a small professional wrestling promotion", could only find one non-trivial mention which seems like a reprinted press release. Fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. --Mhking 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Numerous edits have failed to improve this page from being a self-promotional article.Mmoneypenny 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination made in bad faith. Nominator under investigation for vandalism. Curse of Fenric 06:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this doesn't fall under one of the reasons listed at WP:SK and you're currently in a mediation with the nominator, can we please stop the accusations of bad faith and respond to the nomination itself? That three AfD regulars have agreed with the nom before you made this claim does not help your case.--Kchase T 09:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The mediation is over and has failed. This nomination is a threat to the database of UK indepedant wrestling, and should be removed ASAP. I am stating facts that back up said accusations. Curse of Fenric 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why don't you try again to respond to some of the points made in the nomination. Whatever your feelings about the nominator, he's making valid points, and you have yet to respond to them.--Kchase T 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Because Booyaka's nominations have been slanted against non American feds for the most part. I support the statement by 81 at the top. It is a major UK fed. The points made by Booyaka are not valid. He does not know enough about this fed to make such a judgment. Curse of Fenric 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Technically this may fall under the criteria of Speedy Keep. Numerous allegations have been made that Booyakadell is actually banned user User:JB196, and an investigation is ongoing 81.155.178.248 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That may result in the nomination being ignored by the closing admin, but in light of the substantial discussion here, it shouldn't prompt an admin to close the nomination as speedy keep. In any case, it would need to be proven, first.--Kchase T 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/above. As a side note, second AfD i've seen User:Curse of Fenric attack nominator instead of addressing the deletion debate. /Blaxthos 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly the Googlers should have tried UK Google, which has a number of more hits [1]. It's registered with Dun & Bradstreet [2], not the usual habit of indy feds. RGTraynor 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Speedy Keep: One of the top ten promotions currently active in the UK... high hit counts in UK google and considerable more notable than the hundred US indy promotions on wikipedia.. I have just removed all the no use fancruft so at least it looks respectable now --- Paulley
• Conditional Keep Needs more sourcing. Otherwise I think it is important to have indy feds from other places than the US. NegroSuave 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See [3] [4] [5] [6] for press coverage. A knowledge of the local area that the promotion runs shows in, and which newspapers exist in that area is helpful, rather than claiming they get no coverage 81.155.178.248 11:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Under the circumstances, I ask the Delete voters to withdraw their votes, while humbly asking for a greater degree of pre-vote research in the future. RGTraynor 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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.