Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action 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 delete. Majorly (Talk) 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Zone Wrestling

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

not notable by Wikipedia standards, includes unsourced statements and therefore not verifiable BooyakaDell 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:V, check ghits. MER-C 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Try azw Wrestling -wikipedia -myspace -youtube as search terms, it more hits as it's normally abbreviated. --Sigma 7 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that the search also brings up a wrestling organization also called "anarchy zone wrestling" or somesuch, which might explain why that search gets more hits. --Jackhorkheimer 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. For the link allergic, about 80 ghits. --Dennisthe2 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination... --Mhking 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination made in bad faith. Nominator under investigation for vandalism. Curse of Fenric 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  It would be more constructive, Curse of Fenric, to address why there are no sources in the article. Even if the nominator were under investigation for high treason, that wouldn't make Wikipedia:Verifiability any less policy. Is there any coverage of this topic published in independent sources that we can use to verify the contents of the article? Can you provide links or other references to such sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it does appear that somebody IS targeting Wrestling articles. Especially non-american Wrestling? Valters 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe. Everytime you edit an article here, it says at the bottom of the page, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If you follow the link, you read that, "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." So what's wrong with nominating unverifiable content for deletion? If Wikipedia is being used to host original research, then deleting it is good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Um... Sources please. WP:V would probably work best... so yeah. MrMacMan 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it is possible to verify this information; for starters, this page lists specific dates/locations of AZW events and the `olelo programming table lists it. But I can find no notable mentions in independent sources outside the limited field of indy wrestling, aside from local event listings like this. Coupled with the apparent size of these events (~100 people attending), it doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. -SpuriousQ 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability and citations. /Blaxthos 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. While I strongly dispute the premise of a few editors that "unverifiable" is a synonym for "unverified" (surely, with but a cursory effort, we're verifying some of the facts) even by the standards of local indy wrestling feds this one is under the radar, if they've never broken over 150 fans for a show. They must have lost their shirts paying an appearance fee to A.J. Styles. RGTraynor 21:24, 11 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.