Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress Wrestling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not demonstrably have independent 3rd party coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#32;~HueSatLum 16:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability. References appear to be company information driven.  Also reads as an advertisement for the most part and not a balanced article on a subject. Caffeyw (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do Not delete - This company is very significant in the re-ascent of British Wrestling, and around half a dozen third party links to praise of the company have been included. None of the company referenced information are anything more than facts and statements of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleslie92 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (Comment) - for the very reasons listed by the person above for non-deletion. If and when it "re-ascends" then it might become notable, but Wiki is not a CRYSTAL.  Links of praise don't establish notability.  All they are, are one person/companies opinion.  Caffeyw (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm pretty sure that one can only vote once at any single given AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - First there's no voting on AfD. It's based on a consensus.  Second replying to rebut someone's post is perfectly acceptable as far as I know.  I might have changed Delete to Comment to make it more clear, I kept Delete to show I was still arguing for Deletion.  Either way you can post more the once in order to rebut a person's comment.  Caffeyw (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple voting is discouraged. If you want to reply to some one else's comments, it is better to inset the response with colons.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above and added "(Comment)". Only 1 !vote is allowed, per longstanding practice at AfD. Multiple comments are, of course, allowed. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to just meet the minimum for WP:GNG. Specifically, the sources listed in the article section Media Review/Industry Response which cites a Daily Star article and a chapter in a book on British wrestling. CooperDB (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am very dubious about ther notability, but do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough independent sources to render the nomination invalid, but it does need a rewrite. I'll tag the main section accordingly. It should be a simple task for someone familiar with the specific promotion to fix up. BerleT (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd be happy to undertake that task, as the original author, though would require further guidance on why stating what happened and the results are considered "like an advertisement", my experience with Wikipedia is limited. Cleslie92 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources meet GNG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm also dubious about their notability. Seems the Daily Star article is the only independent piece that asserts any notion of notability.  The book by Carrie Dunn may as well, although I'm concerned that the book mentions Progress Wrestling in a trivial manner.  The cover of the book features TNA stars from the UK and the Amazon description (which is used as a reference in the article) doesn't mention the subject at all.  In the very least I don't think that is going to push it past the GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having read it the Carrie Dunn book features PROGRESS extensively. You also ignored the references to Alternative Wrestling Magazine, Answering The Ten Count and GrappleTalk.com. User:Cleslie92 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I ignored them because I'm not entirely sure how reliable they are.LM2000 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the problem with this debate? How can people who have no subject knowledge decide what is notable? Cleslie92 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We're speaking strictly on the sources, which AfDs often focus on. As I've said before, I have concerns that the sources provided do not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG).  The three sources you last mentioned likely aren't reliable (one of them just 404s anyway), for a list of reliable sources for professional wrestling articles, check the styles guide.  If this does survive deletion it will need some work, as User:Caffeyw has pointed out the current layout reads like a promotional brochure (WP:PROMOTION).  I currently stand by my delete vote, as nom points out reliable independent coverage is seriously lacking.LM2000 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2013 (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.