Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Wrestling Association (2nd nomination)

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 - the organization fails WP:CORP and, per nom, there is no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Plain and simple. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Wrestling Association

United Wrestling Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney303 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Seems a fairly good article atm, doesn't look like it warrents deletion just yet, really should of been raised on the project talk page first. But it could certainly do with more citation. Govvy 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A virtually unsourced article is not "good". It was previously kept as "no consensus" in November, and it's been tagged as unsourced since February. The project have had ample time to show it's notable. One Night In Hackney303 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know everything that is nominated, I tend to stick to what is on the project talk page. Govvy 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The nom never puts anything on the talk page or discusses the issue; they simply put up the unsourced tag, what a few weeks to a few months and then prod it for Afd.
  • Delete per nominator, fails WP:CORP with no reliable third party sources. This should be pruned back to stub status if sources cannot be provided by the week end. Burntsauce 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I see some notability, but very little, pwtorch.com covers some stories which aren't even mentioned in the article. But there seems to be a lot of what I would call rubbish in the article, like Burntsauce said, it should be skimmed down. But I feel it is worth keeping once it has been skimmed down. Govvy 10:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment o, that link was already there know, I was just referencing it... wasn't reading it so much! heh. Govvy 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should get rid of all of that... Govvy 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep , however the article should be expanded with more reputable citations. Smee 10:02, 16 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.