Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling

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 and another special note to Curse of Fenric that he restrict his comments in any future discussions to the article being discussed rather than attacking the nominator (per WP:NPA and WP:AGF). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling

New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable indy wrestling promotion, fails WP:V and WP:CORP BooyakaDell 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Mhking 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination made in bad faith. Nominator under investigation for vandalism. Curse of Fenric 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does appear that this nomination follows from disagreements betwixt the nominator and Curse of Fenric, but the nomination provides a reason for deletion that, if accurate, would be sufficient to counsel deletion (that is, a valid reason), such that it probably serves no productive purpose for us to impugn the nominator, the RfCs and mediations surrounding the nominator and Curse notwithstanding. It should, I imagine, be more useful for you to set out why you think the article comports with WP:V and WP:CORP, especially if you might be able to adduce reliable sources toward notablity (which I think might well be demonstrable). Joe 08:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article certainly does need more citations, but it is noteable because

a) It is the most well-travelled professional wrestling promotion in New Zealand, and the only one to perform in New Zealand's South Island.

b) It is an important part of the history of Kiwi Pro Wrestling, a 'spin-off' of NZWPW which is noteable; see Talk:Kiwi Pro Wrestling for discussion of KPW's notability.

c) It is certainly locally noteable in Wellington, where it is the oldest promotion and has performed dozens of shows over the last few years. As such it has been written about in noteable Wellington publications Salient (Google cache link) and The Dominion Post (who unfortunately don't keep their archives online. It was a front page story however). - Conniption 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom/above. Note THIRD time User:Curse of Fenric has attacked nominator instead of addressing deletion debate. /Blaxthos 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blazthos, I encourage you to check the history of JB196 who did exactly the same thing Booyaka has done - and has been banned for it. I was merely pointing out a fact relating to the history of this article. Curse of Fenric 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AfD is not a vote. You need to provide an argument why article should be kept: 'delete per nom' is counterproductive, because it encourages other users to think that we are indeed voting on this. Valters 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not certain that that's entirely correct, although I think the nomination here to be relatively insubstantial, such that one might want to expound on his/her delete per nom in order to make clear how the article is deficient relative to WP:V or WP:CORP. Generally, though, one's supporting delete per nom or keep per Joe Blow is quite fine inasmuch as it means to suggest that the editor so participating concurs in the reasoning and interpretation of policy offered by the nominator or Joe Blow; it is not unlike, I think it fair to say, {{prod2}}, which serves to inform an admin that at least one other editor has found the conclusions of fact and suppositions of policy of the PRODder to be correct/persuasive. Joe 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have now, as I indicated I would, added citations and more proof of noteability to the article, including references from noteable publications Salient and Scoop. - Conniption 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a bad faith nomination at the very best. With the sourcing added it is now quite a bit more respectable. NegroSuave 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep With the new sources, I think this qualifies SirFozzie 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sources and references have been added, clearly meeting verifiability and notability requirements. 81.155.178.248 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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.