Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination)

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. Core desat 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wrestling Federation[edit]

Consensus should be reached this time. This fails WP:N and despite the time given by the no consensus result last time, no sources that pass WP:RS have been provided. The promotion has no mainstream coverage in Australia !! Justa Punk !! 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable professional wrestling promotion that does not meet WP:ORG. Despite valiant attempts, the authors of the article have been unable to provide independent reliable sources asserting the notability of the organisation. The promotion has no mainstream media coverage in Australia. (Lifted from my previous nomination. Nothing has changed.) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quite impressed with the nom now as he actually gave the authors roughly two months to fix the article. (They tried but I think the org is really not notable.)

See, being not hasty to Afd won't make you look like the bad guy. WP haven't lost credibility in the past two months due to my actions. And my "prophecy" came true: Besides you can always nominate it later and the Wikiproject might even do it for you if they found out that the article is really non-notable. It turned out Hybrid wanted this article prodded and you re-nominated it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~Delete. At first glance it looked like a clear delete but there seems to be easily enough sources on this. Macarthur Cronicle 13/Nov/2007 Wrestling's big finale for 2007; Illawarra Mercury 28/06/2007 AWF wrestling showdown comes to The Frat; Illawarra Mercury 29/06/2007 WrestleFest at the Fraternity; The Sydney Daily Telegraph 06/01/2007 No holds barred - Blood, sweat and cheers; some reference in Inside Sport; Mar2006 Issue 171, page 25; quite a few other bits in the Illawara Mercury and the Newcastle Herald; noted in the news as far back as 2000; Numerous mentions in "Events" sections of newspapers in addition to the aforementioned. Seems that we can have an article meeting WP:N, V and RS. I've read many of the news articles (through EBSCOhost) and they seem the primary topic of enough to write a good article. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC). Changing opinion after some searching - thanks for the good searching Justa Punk - Peripitus (Talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have investigated the articles in the newspapers already and they were press releases - which are not allowed under the rules of WP:RS. Or was it WP:V? It was one of them. The Macarthur Chronicle is a community newspaper also unlike the others. There is no independent mainstream media coverage in Australia. Sorry, Peripitus. It can not pass WP:N. !! Justa Punk !! 08:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was under the impression they were advertorial type materials, certainly not independent of the subject or each other. It doesn't mean they can't be used, with caution even where a conflict may exist but they can't be used to establish notability under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just, it's RS. While some may be advertorials, I've just read through three, that are certainly not (they have bylines, don't include phone numbers/websites and don't have an advertising tone). Certainly looks mainstream and independant, I can't see a problem with WP:V/RS....N is another thing possibly. Although there is coverage and independant commentary, essentially they're a commercial enterprise that plays to 50~300 people in RSL clubs. One funny thing found in all this; they got a federal govt grant for $50K to "educate their athletes not to verbal competitors" - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Illawarra Mercury, I checked with the paper. Each and every story was provided by the promotion, and they were titled "AWF Press Release". That's an automatic fail on WP:RS and WP:V. It doesn't have to have phone numbers and so forth to be a press release. Nor does it have to have an advertising tone. The key is who provided the story. !! Justa Punk !! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are still some useful information in this article Olliyeah (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful info doesn't equal a pass in WP:N. And if it fails WP:V by definition it's not useful. !! Justa Punk !! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources mentioned seem to be about events not the organisation. None of the individual events seem notable so AWF isn't "notable by association" the way a band might be just because it went on one notable tour.Ga rr ie 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails notability test. GetDumb (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think any issue with WP:RS or WP:V is relevant as this fails WP:N TaintedZebra (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not seem to be any reliable sources for this organisation. Failing WP:V means you usually also fail WP:N. Lankiveil (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:42, 13 December 2007 (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.