Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Keystone State Wrestling Alliance Alumni

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. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keystone State Wrestling Alliance Alumni[edit]

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

List of unremarkable persons is not independently notable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.Wikipedia:Notability (people) "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists criteria are both met. Also, there is an Under Construction tab that you apparently didn't pay attention to...Gvstaylor1 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose yes, I can't support this when Template:Under construction was on a new article and it was being worked on. It's an uncivil and inconsiderate thing to do to an editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - For now. I don't see how a list of alumni is independently notable from the company, and I don't think a WP:SPINOFF article is needed because the main article isn't incredibly large...but there is an under construction tag, so the article creator should be given a little more time to prove notability as long as he or she is actively working on it. Nikki♥311 01:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The period for a procedural close has lapsed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for having been rude. Subject is clearly notable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:05, 24 September 2017 (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.