Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XCW Pro Wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, default to Keep. Walton Need some help? 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XCW Pro Wrestling

XCW Pro Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:N. One Night In Hackney303 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Weak because it's televised, or at least the article says so. No sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are several sources supporting the existance of its television series with the exception of its official website. A cursory search brings up for example [1], [2]. MadMax 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The company is also a TV production company then, perhaps you'd like to provide non-trivial sources about the company that allow an encyclopedic article to be written, rather than re-hashed press releases? One Night In Hackney303 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Corrected? Are the edits I made enought to remove this weak delete?Dannyfranks 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan • (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am still confused as to why this article is up for deletion. It is an independent wrestling promotion that runs live shows weekly and has for 5 years. They have had the same PPV deal that Ring of Honor JUST signed for going on 2 years, and has television distribution in over 70 million US homes. On top of that, multiple territorial offshoots are opening up, with the first one having its first show in June. I challenge you to find many, if any, indy promotions with those credentials. That is why deletion is inappropriate. Dannyfranks 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. From WP:CORP : "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". " Describes this instance perfectly. Just because, to you, it is not "famous" or "important" does not mean it is not "worthy of being noted". If you feel that something does not comply with WP:V , then address that. However I feel you are being over ambitious to try and use the lack of available internet sources as means to delete the enire article. Dannyfranks 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On the contrary, it's not up to me to prove the company isn't notable, it's up to those wishing to retain the article. Here's the link to the relevant part of the guideline for you. One Night In Hackney303 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you got an over inflated ego there buddy...I'm the one on the prowrestling project, not you...this is a pro wrestling article. I actually was going to voice my opinion, but decided against it based on a certain noms actions. Theophilus75 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think the MavTV link and other reference is sufficient, but there is still much room for improvement here. RFerreira 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator due to lack of non-trivial third party sources. Burntsauce 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question How do you personally define "non-trivial"? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Re:Delete' There are physically not online sources out there that can be referenced on here. It can all be validated by turning on MavTV, America One, or looking at your cable/sattelite provider's PPV section. All available third party sources (wrestling news sites) are not allowed by WP, which therefore eliminates all possibility as using them as references. Dannyfranks 16:14, 17 May 2007 (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.