Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Event 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 of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Event Wrestling

Vanity page. The promotion has only run two shows attended by a few hundred people, and is not worthy of an entry Sasaki 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete but how can your reasoning be correct when the page could easily turn out to be useful information? Ste4k 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "useful information"? The entire entry seems to only attempt to advertise the promotion. If Main Event Wrestling become a large successful promotion running dozens of shows then an entry could be justified in some form, but that is not the case at this moment in time. Sasaki 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Ste4k is a bit miffed about an earlier AfD that was closed today and the statement above is a reference to that.--Isotope23 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP.--Isotope23 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• The page is not a vanity page, it is a Valid page offering information upon a Promotion that may become something bigger, the authors are in the process of finding more sutible information to add to the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstan (talk • contribs)
• Comment - The article fits in with Category:Professional wrestling promotions which has a number of such small promoters. This one, though, appears smaller than the others. It appears to be written as a piece of promotion - though there are a number of articles which start out that way but become brilliant with good editing, so that in itself is not reason for a deletion so much as a cleanup. It doesn't look like an a clear and obvious case for deletion. But on the other hand there is little for a casual observer to say in its defence. Neutral I suppose. SilkTork 14:12, 5 July 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.