Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament

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 delete but I will make the content available if it's needed for a merge or something similar, drop me a line. W.marsh 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament

ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Annual tournament held by a minor league wrestling promotion, no evidence of notability and little more than a directory of results. One Night In Hackney303 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no evidence of non-trivial third party sources to support this article. RFerreira 08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. An abbreviated section within the main ECCW article, with a list of just the tournament winners (supported by some backing evidence, without going into detail on each of the tournament events themselves) should be sufficient. Starbuck-2 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Man, why do non-WWF/WCW wrestling articles get targeted so often? Just because people in the US aren't familiar with what is going on with this Canadian organization does not mean that it is not notable to Canadians. ECCW is a major promotion in the (as the nom said) "minor league wrestling promotion." This article is no different than the King of the Ring article. If this one needs removed then so does the King of the Ring article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have reviewed the Notability Guidelines and what Wikipedia is not (yet again), and I still stand by my original statement. This article is NOT something that would be limited by WP:NOT, nor does it specifically not qualify as per WP:N. If anything is wrong with this article it is the lack of sources substantiating notability, but the King of the Ring article also has only one source page therefore not substantiating it's notability. The notability of this article (like the King of the Ring article) is substantiated in the notability of the promotion. If one would insist on deleting this article as recommended by the nom, then one should follow the deletion policies and first look to merge the article with another article, as merging is ALWAYS the first thing one should look to do. In this case I would suggest it be merged with the promotions article...but I would then also suggest that the King of the Ring article be merged with the WWE article as the King of the Ring article has established notability just as well as this article. Theophilus75 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you wish to retain the article, please provide evidence which proves it meets with notability guidelines. The status of any other article is not relevant to the current discussion, we are discussing this article. One Night In Hackney303 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Point, which I would hope that you get, is that the article is notable based on the notability of the wrestling promotion...or is the wrestling promotion one of your [targets for next week]? Merging is always the preference over deletion at Wikipedia. Merging this article would best be done by merging it into the promotions article; but then it would fall under the Wikipedia recommendation that if you can spin off one article from another one because there is a lot of content about one issue in an article that it is suggested to do that...so you end up on with cylic reasoning (within Wikipedia rules) on what to do.Theophilus75 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Merging shouldn't be an option for this type of information, it's cruft with no enyclopedic value. All that would be needed is a small table showing the winners of each year in the main article. One Night In Hackney303 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Cruft," by the Wikipedia article, is in the eye of the beholder; what is cruft to you is not necessarily cruft to me. Maybe the rule you need to look at more often before throwing up Afd's on wrestling articles are WP:UCS and inparticular, WP:IAR.Theophilus75 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would contend that I have seen many, many similar articles deleted, precisely because they are cruft and fail WP:NOT. I shall repeat what I said elsewhere, this is an encylopedia not a wrestling fan site. One Night In Hackney303 15:22, 14 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.