Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masked Republic

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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Republic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7 CSD. Leaving aside the current state of the article, and whether or not the comment about being the largest seller of lucha libre products is an adequate claim to significance, all of the sources both in the article and that I have found are either regurgitations of press releases, or passing comments in industry press. I see no way that it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP, particularly WP:ORGCRITE. Hugsyrup (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "current state of the article" is that it is a stub with two bare urls. Not issues even worth brining up on an AFD. And the sources that are there are not all "regurgitations of press releases", that is a frivolous claim which hinges on that you personally can somehow judge when coverage is valid and not based on how the source found the information, not all article have to be based on secret insider sources. Also, a google search easily finds coverage about their fight to combat illegal selling of their intelectual property from Pro Wrestling Insider and this article from Vice (mainstream entertainment publication) about their attempt to bring more Mexican wrestling to the US. There is also coverage from Burlington County Times and Philly.com about their wrestling events and conventions.★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article sources indicate coverage in reliable sources needed to meet notability guidelines. StaticVapor message me! 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a stub, but the sources shown here and in the article appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG to me. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - the keep votes are relying heavily on the sources in the article. In my opinion these quite clearly do not meet the WP:ORGCRITE 5-part requirement of:

significant coverage
in multiple
reliable
secondary sources
that are independent of the subject.

As I said in the nomination, the sources provided are promotional in nature or superficial coverage in trade publications. Indeed, at least two are explicitly based on press releases (and say so within the article), and several others are evidently based on the same press release. I hope that other contributors will take the time to review this article, and the sources within it, and provide a comment based on policy. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your deduction of the references is factually incorrect. Sources are reliable, secondary, independent, significant and multiple. StaticVapor message me! 12:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete total reliance on the sheer number of sources, despite them clearly not being reliable and independent. NCP^Talk 17:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely passes WP:WEBCRIT(The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself), WP:PRODUCT (If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy), WP:GNG, etc.--PATH SLOPU 02:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Went through every google result (seven pages) and four pages of google news results and didn't find a single article actually covering the company. Every result was either promotional, a press release, or sponsorship related. Given that one of the references is actually a shopping page for women's athletic wear (mostly new balance and bally brands), perhaps another review of the company's coverage is in order. Even a link provided in the above comments is to a press release. Regurgitated press releases is not significant coverage. Other than the Vice article, which is really about a single event, there's nothing. The Philly.com is a wrestling fan blogpost (and is also related to a single event). This page fails on WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:GNG and more. ogenstein (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Barely notable is still notable, and deletion is not cleanup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 May 2019 (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.