Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Entertainment
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. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pro Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable venture which only staged two events (and according to article one had an audience of 50! The only reference of any substance that I can find is their press release in the Herald) dramatic (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No notability found in my search.--WillC 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Although the original Pro Wrestling Entertainment promotion was hardly notable, the Pro Wrestling Entertainment faction in Impact Pro Wrestling certainly had a notable presence in IPW (which is New Zealand's biggest professinal wrestling promotion) with one of their members having a stint as (kayfabe) IPW Commissioner. Unfortunately there is no Wikipedia article about IPW, but if there was one then this article could be merged into it.118.93.84.144 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted unconstested last September for lack of notability, and a few days later Impact Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. I agree that the PWE faction might rate a paragraph in an IPW article if it was rewritten. dramatic (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this promotion didn't even last a whole year, and I couldn't find any third party sources to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was first written in late June last year. Why has this lack of notability suddenly become an issue now?118.93.84.144 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was tagged as probably not meeting the notability guideline in Feb 09. Probably, nobody noticed the article before then. Nikki♥311 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was first written in late June last year. Why has this lack of notability suddenly become an issue now?118.93.84.144 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete from April to August? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable and probably a conflict of interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable promotion. Afkatk (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If IPW isn't notable, then neither is this. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
