Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Contested speedy claiming sources this time and no sources last time. Doesn't change the fact that this title is not notable. Sources are not independent of the subject (ie there's nothing outside of NZPWI which takes up all bar two of the sources - not good enough). Previously deleted for lack of notability and should go again under DB-Repost. !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sources make no difference if the content is the same. It's primarily a list so just proving title changes happened doesn't change the root notability issue. Speedy. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to know whether it's a speedy G4 or not, since the provision is that "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" which makes it essentially useless (You know why I can't compare this to the deleted version? Because it was DELETED!! Duh!!) However, there's no notability established, since the only sources are the IPWNZ website. Mandsford 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going speedy because last time I voted delete the fed wasn't notable. The fed appears to be now, but that doesn't mean this title is. Mal Case (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No independent third party coverage. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2010 (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.