Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Wrestling Connection


 * 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. The sources provided by the keep voters are not convincing evidence of notability. Consensus is that this is a non-notable organization. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 02:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Wrestling Connection

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion (in facility with ~300 seating). Also including the leagues championships
 * NYWC Starlet Championship
 * NYWC Hi-Fi Championship
 * NYWC Interstate Championship
 * NYWC Fusion Championship
 * NYWC Tag Team Championship
 * NYWC Heavyweight Championship

All dependent on the main article. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook  05:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of professional wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The promotion is covered by various reliable sources, like PWInsider or PWTorch. Maybe, the problem with the article is the lack of sources --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But PWInsider is not a reliable source. . And where is the significant coverage on PWTorch? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete All Minor local group - at the very least the sub-pages should be merged into the main.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep All I'll give you the advertising tone. However, it has the reliable sources.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep main article, merge rest. Article receives enough coverage from the five WP:PW approved online reliable secondary sources. See this and this. As HHH Pedrigree has said, the main thing is to merge the sources into the article. starship  .paint   ~ regal  02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep main, merge rest. Not really a wrestling fan, but my search found enough sources for NYWC to support a GNG claim.  Someone should add them to the article, but that's not an AFD issue.  The rest of the articles should be merged (or deleted) because the only source for them is the NYWC itself.Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question for many of the above people. What are the sources you have found? Just saying there is sources is not enough, what are the sources. And WP:GOOGLEHITS is also not. Looking at some of the results from the google searches I'm not seeing any depth of coverage, just routine announcements. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless sources are found for verifiability and suggesting notability. As it stands, this reads more like an ad for the venue than an ad for the promotion. But yeah, it's like that to an extent, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all I found no significant independent coverage for the main article and the only source for the other articles (on the various titles) is the organization itself.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep main, merge the rest.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all My search didn't find significant independent coverage of the NYWC. Everything I found was either not from an independent reliable source or consisted of routine announcements of results or upcoming fights.  I notice that none of those voting to keep the article have given links to any sources nor have any new sources been added to the article.  If the main article is kept, the remaining articles should be merged into it since they lack independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a lot of google hits, but I don't see significant coverage.Jakejr (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2014 (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.