Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 as notability has been established. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)[edit]

Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable indy wrestling promotion which fails WP:V and WP:CORP BooyakaDell 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Professional Championship Wrestling" Australia gets one relevant mention in Google News Archive in the Moonee Valley Leader. [1]. Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whadda ya mean, we're gonna have to see each and every wrestling promotion on the planet!? I don't think so! --Mhking 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Carnage controversy made all the mainstream media outlets. Ask any Australian wrestling fan - they'll tell you. Nomination is ridiculous. Curse of Fenric 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are in a mediation with me, the nominator of the article. I don't think you should be saying that the "nomination is ridiculous."BooyakaDell 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made this nomination while in mediation when told not to edit. Hence the statement. Curse of Fenric 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional information - article title "'Scary' wrestling could be illegal" published in the Melbourne Age (one of the city's two major daily newspapers) during the week following the event. It didn't come up in a Google search because you have to pay for it to read it now - as it took place in 2002. But it's there! Curse of Fenric 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A search on EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand Reference Database comes up with 4 articles for Professional Championship Wrestling including the Melbourne Age article referred to above as well as Herald Sun article called "No punching bags" an article in the 2005 Geelong Advertiser called "Midget wrestles big boys" and an article in the Geelong News called "Men in Tights here to fight". It is closer to notability on this although I am not yet convinced. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish - the incident in 2002 had a MAJOR effect on the local scene making things tougher on it through the stronger application of public liability insurance. Again - I say SPEEDY KEEP! A major part of indy wrestling history in Melbourne (Australia's second largest city) will be lost. Curse of Fenric 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability has been established, WP:CORP states;
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations...
The newspaper articles are noted above 81.155.178.248 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from the Carnage controversy being one of the more notable incidents in Australian professional wrestling (I'm surprised it hasn't been included in the Professional wrestling in Australia article) the promotion is a pretty notable company within itself. When PWA moves out of Victoria at the end of the year it will probably be the largest promotion in Victoria. I think that's notable enough to deserve a keep. Normy132 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll add to that by observing that PCW is the oldest active fed in Victoria (formed in 2000) and the third oldest active fed in Australia (behind the only active feds formed on the 20th century - IWA and AWF in Sydney). Additional notability - with source - will be added unless circumstances prevent me (reference result of RFC and my reaction to it).
Note It should be noted that the above vote by Normy132 was solicited by Curse of Fenric per this diff right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Normy132&diff=93535430&oldid=93336548).BooyakaDell 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have known about this AFD regardless of whether Curse of Fenric notified me or not because this article is in my watchlist. My opinion would have stood as it is as well. Normy132 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't change what he did.BooyakaDell 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So because he put a note on my talk page to tell me that this page is up for AFD, it makes my opinion null and void? Normy132 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. I said that the fact that your vote was solicited means that this should be taken into consideration when an admin looks at this page. It is an admin's perogative.BooyakaDell 17:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been made clear before that Afds are not votes 81.155.178.248 11:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an actual Wrestling Promotion and whilst it is it deserves just as much mention on Wiki as WWE TNA and the NWA! If PWA is deleted you may as well delete every single wrestling promotion on Wiki. WackadooXanadu 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a violation of WP:AGF to say that this is an absolutely absurd argument.BooyakaDell 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why? It's a perfectly reasonable point. Curse of Fenric 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, any backyard wrestling federation should have an article on Wikipedia.BooyakaDell 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is neither "absolutely absurd", nor perfectly reasonable. It would be reasonable, if our inclusion criteria had anything to do with what topics "deserve". Since we're not making that kind of judgement, our inclusion criteria have only to do with whether or not citable sources exist. The only question to consider in deciding whether or not to keep the article is whether or not citable sources exist. All the rest is distraction. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point - and it was missed by Booyaka - is that the reference make by Wackadoo was to PROFESSIONAL feds, and not backyard. That's why it was a reasonable point. Bacchus, there are citable sources already on the article (the newspaper clipping for example) and I would be happy to cite the tv coverage if I knew how that would be possible beyond what's already there. Not to mention the evidence that is in this AfD entry of newspaper coverage. Curse of Fenric 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if this article was to have sources added to it, the article will stay? Normy132 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the idea, yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated[edit]

Have now added sourced information. Recommend nomination for deletion be withdrawn - unless an admin thinks what I've done isn't enough. Curse of Fenric 12:37, 17 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_(Australia)&oldid=1138256955"