Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardcore Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per consensus of established users. --Core desat  19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Wrestling Federation and The Triangle of Death

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This previous AfD related to a New York organisation. The present article relates to a UK one so it can have a new AfD. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC) On December 14th 2005 the ploice were called due to claims of arson and trespassing, as well as criminal damage, 2 members of the groups in question were detained but released with out charged when supspect dropped all charges under certain circumstances. On July 21st 2006 the police where alerted to a ring of criminal activity involving assault,fraud,criminal damage and arsonistic behaviour. On both occasions mentioned several criminal objects and illegal substances were confiscated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.46.130 (talk • contribs)
 * Do Not Delete I have been asked by the organisaton to vouch for some of the ideas this articles uses, and being a police officer I can do that officially. I will only justify a few incidents as I'm a little short of time.
 * Definitely Do Not Delete I undoubtedly agree with both points made below and protest to the accusations and proposal for deletion. — ValuedMember214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Do Not Delete I am personally a person who is willing to accept new ideas and embrace them before judging them, having been informed of the current debate i felt outraged at these propostrous claims of a lack of notability and credibility. I suggest that these people actually take an interest in the subject before making such ludacris comments and lowering my respective view of them. As I have been a fan of the organisation involved for the past 9 months I as a part of the online community can protest that they have a high notability and credibility in most parts of the country.NewIdeasRevolution 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — NewIdeasRevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Do Not Delete This article has a huge degree of notability for people that take an interest in such pressing new ideas being introduced to the online community, and just because a certain person has not heard of this activity, it does not mean that thousands of others have not. Many people would protest to some of the claims being made about notability and credibility, as they can vouch against them because they have adapted these ideas into their lifestyle.PsychoPsam 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — PsychoPsam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and possible speedy A7. Backyard wrestling?  I think not.  I live in the UK, I have not heard so much as a murmur about this and there are no sources and no apparent claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Do Not Delete This is a perfect example of how a backyard wrestling federation is created and done and was the only notable on ever to come from the U.K. Amongst the online communities of bacyard feds this is highly regarded as one of the best. If there wasnt an article about the HWF then wikipedia wouldnt be as detailed an extensive about the highly controversial issue of backyard wrestling 86.143.221.241 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already an article on Backyard wrestling. TJ Spyke 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Backyard wrestling feds are almost never notable (I have only seen 1 or 2 that woulddeserve articles), and these two don't show why they should be exceptions. TJ Spyke 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above. -- bullet proof  3:16 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading the article gives the impression that its subject is barely a step above the "something made up in school one day" level. No credible claim of notability and no sources – not even non-verifiable, non-respectable ones. Get rid of this. Henning Makholm 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I do not see the reason for deleting this article - mind you, not everone can sit down and fully flesh out an article and give it all the required sources in one sitting. Give the article at least seven days before nominating it for deletion. I know for when I cannot complete finish an article in one sitting, let alone day. --Ozgod 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An article is supposed to at least show notability when it's created. The chances of proving these backyard wrestling groups as notable is unlikely because they are almost never notable. Nevertheless, the AFD provides 5 days to show why these should be kept. TJ Spyke 02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally non-notable, and the fact that all the ones who want to keep the article vote "Do Not Delete" show that no one with any WP experience wants this article kept. Booshakla 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is questionable. --RebSkii 18:47, 16 February 2007 (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.