Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic pro wrestling

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * (added by Darrenhusted (talk))
 * (added by Darrenhusted (talk))
 * (added by Darrenhusted (talk))

I've declined an A7 speedy on this, as 1) there are satelite pages that do not qualify for A7, and 2) There's an outside chance this is actually notable. But for now, there is no indication that this thing is actually notable in the slightest. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know if this is how I go about talking about the "speedy deletion" note, But I was wondering the problem with the page and why it is up for deletion? What is it meant by "Actually Notable"? This is a real company, trying to continue to get its name out there. The RPW website is currently down if that is the problem? And Im new to adding Wikipedia entries so I am unfamiliar with a "Satellite" Page and "A7".

--LocoNL (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CORP for details of what notability means for companies on Wikipedia. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is not asserted. The first site in a google search comes with the google warning "This site may harm your computer." which is not a good sign. I found a third related article and added that. The sole contributor seems to be treating Wikipedia like his own webspace. @LocoNL, your company may exist but that alone is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the guidelines for notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm sorry LocoNL! I do not believe the organization qualifies as notable, per the guidelines. Very bluntly, the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy states Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, all four. Notability is not established, and previous editors have said plenty about WP policy on such use of WP. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not established, as per the earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:N. Nikki  311  01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N.-- S R X  22:40, 22 October 2008 (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.