Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestlicious

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. BJ^Talk 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlicious[edit]

Non-notable company that fails to verify any sort of notability with reliable sources. Has very few Google News hits. Nominated after PROD was removed. Scjessey (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE, no references. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added article from 3rd party site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References added. The company is notable because it involves a WWE Hall Of Famer, Jimmy Hart, and was founded by the youngest powerball winner ever, Jonathan Vargas. Lacey Von Erich, whose family was inducted into the WWE Hall Of Fame in 2009, is the company's featured star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing you just mentioned established anymore notability. There is no reliable third party site within the article. The only reliable ones are all primary, and primary sites don't establish notability, third party does.--WillC 11:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about the company on Wrestleview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then include them and try to write in a netural professional manner.--WillC 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rather than add external links to the references section, references need to be citations (see WP:CITE) especially since there really isn't much claim of notability in the article itself, just the existence of this group.--RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The user does not know how. He or she is inexperienced. The user once told me that he was one of creators of the promotion, so if that is true, then this is technically an advertisement. Looking at his edits, he must think that you place the links in the reference section to make them appear like the one already in there.--WillC 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, there seems to be no third party sources available. According to the website [1], the promotion is appearing on TV this fall, so it may be notable then...Therefore, I say delete for now with no prejudice for recreation in the future if it meets the notability guidelines. Nikki♥311 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes no claim for notability whatsoever and at present is more like a directory than an article. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 08:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:DIR. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete adding references that keep being removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References must be reliable. The only proven reliable wrestling sites are Figure Four, WrestleView, PWTorch, and Slam Sports. These help establish notability. There are very few that are acceptable besides these. Newspapers, etc are reliable. But when it comes to wrestling, there are few related stories.--WillC 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One of the sites that was removed as "unreliable" was from CBS (which brings to mind some great Dan Rather jokes, but should obviously be acceptable as a reliable third-party source). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That one would be reliable.--WillC 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There are Wrestleview.com articles about the company" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Do Not Delete The Sun out of the UK is publishing updates on the promotion like this one and I've read updates on Wrestlicious on paid sites that I can't post here like F4W. 76.92.215.49 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)— 76.92.215.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Funny how the only major objectors are the COI violator and anonymous IP's. If those sources exist, link them or provide screen shots if you can't link them. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.