Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NWA Supreme United States Championship

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. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Supreme United States Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe your opinion of this being a non-notable title for a non-notable promotion is just that, an opinion. NWA Supreme is a part of the National Wrestling Alliance. While the NWA may not be the huge sanctioning body it once was, it is still part of the history of wrestling, dating back over 50 years. NWA Supreme is an affiliate of this group and has wrestlers who have wrestled for the WWE and other promotions. This championship has been around since early 2016 and has been defended in multiple NWA territories. I respectfully ask that this page not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonecohen6 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a part of the National Wrestling Alliance, as mentioned above. For all the reasons already mentioned by Jasonecohen6, i request that the article is kept. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a member of the NWA in 2017 does not in anyway impart notability, heck just being a member of the NWA In 1970 or 1948 or 1984 is in itself not an indicator of notability and that was from a period of time where the NWA actually meant something. I cannot find any real coverage of this championship in general and nothing in anything resembling a reliable source. MPJ-DK 10:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MPJ-DK, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NWA Supreme doesn't meet WP:GNG, so its title definitely doesn't. If this gets deleted, there is also NWA Supreme Television Championship and NWA Supreme Heavyweight Championship to also look at. Nikki♥311 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This seems to be an attempt to completely destroy the reputation of a professional wrestling organization by people with a vendetta, not a true attempt at making sure Wikipedia articles meet certain standards. The NWA is the oldest sanctioning body in professional wrestling. NWA Supreme is an integral part of the National Wrestling Alliance. I do not feel it is fair to delete any of these articles. Wikipedia is not supposed to be for opinions, only facts. These articles state nothing but facts and your arguments to delete are all based on opinion. By your definition, only the WWE should be notable because they are the most well known brand of professional wrestling. That is like saying McDonald's should be the only fast food article allowed on Wikipedia. Again, I ask that these pages not be removed. User:Jasonecohen6 —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No duplicates please. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when discussing this deletion. This is not at all "[destroying] the reputation...by people with a vendetta." This is simply a non-notable title. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, nor is it proven in the article with a Facebook page and a primary source. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasonecohen6 instead of voting "keep" repeatedly or accusing people of evil.plots why don't you put your efforts towards something that could actually save the article? For it not to be deleted you should provide as many Reliable sources from third party sites, magazines or books? If you can prove that "significant coverage" exists in those it would probably be kept. Saying "Don't be a hater" does not help in any way, so please make a positive contribution instead. MPJ-DK 17:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MPJ-DK, for a site that prides itself on being reliable, you quoted me as saying "don't be a hater" yet I never said those words. I was only implying that your opinion of notable is just an opinion. I think you need to check with reliable sources as to what I said. User:Jasonecohen6
- Ouch you totally got me there, now I'll totally want to keep this against all established guidelines. I guess I should have stated that you assumed bad faith in us by stating that we were "destroy the reputation of a professional wrestling organization by people with a vendetta", but then again you're not a realiable source so I decided to paraphrase and you decided to show that any serious conversation is over. MPJ-DK 22:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:13, 24 March 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.