Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestlezone

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlezone[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable business which organizes wrestling matches and wrestling tuition in Scotland. I can find no evidence of any significant independent coverage of this organization, apart from these two PR type articles when the company was starting up [1], [2] (at least I assume it's the same company). This article had been speedy-deleted 3 times and was recreated within two months of the last deletion. It was almost immediately prodded, but shortly thereafter the notice was removed without addressing the concerns. Even if this were a notable company, the article's style and content are so wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia that it would need a complete rewrite. It is also clearly being written by people associated with the company. [3], [4].

Note that this organization and its website are not to be confused with the wrestlezone.com website which is owned by CraveOnline. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 12:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After my searches, an attempt would be futile anyway. The evidence to support notability from independent reliable sources simply isn't out there. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links of coverage in the press about WrestleZone and other articles. -

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3262949 Aberdeen Evening Express - 03/06/2013 http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3255985 Aberdeen Evening Express - 28/05/2013 https://www.kompany.co.uk/p/uk/sc421520 Registration with Companies house in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.165.157 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your third link is simply a company listing, showing that it exists. It does nothing to attest to its notability. The other two are reports in a local newspaper about the same event, one before it happened and one after. Wrestlezone is mentioned in them as the organizer of the event. These do not constitute the kind of significant coverage of the company itself required by the criteria at WP:ORG. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT THE FREAKING EARTH: Enough is enough; if this GNG failure keeps getting recreated, let's see to that. Ravenswing 06:56, 29 July 2013 (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.