Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. The country's wrestling scene as a whole is not notable. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, overriding concern that this type of content is not encyclopedic and mass advertising. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and move to Professional wrestling in New Zealand as a prose article. Although I have personally sought the deletion of a number of articles on individual promotions for lack of sources/lack of notability, there are sources (e.g. the Herald article) to create a single overview article detailing the history of pro wrestling in New Zealand (from early 20th century onwards). Advertising can be dealt with. Yes, the country's wrestling scene is small (and the wrestlers all have day jobs) but it does exist and has been written about. And there was one era (the 1980s) when wrestling had a high profile. dramatic (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per my response here. I had specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod by referencing the single supposedly "non-notable" promotion with cited references from multiple news articles. The list currently lists only three promotions, two of which already exist on Wikipedia, and find it hard to understand why this list is "unsustainable". Nor do I agree that it qualifies for deletion under WP:NOTDIR or WP:ADVERT and the nominator has yet to specify how it does. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and does not seem sufficiently encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May I ask what specific criteria this list fails per WP:N? Professional wrestling in New Zealand seems a perfectly notable topic of interest. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep and move per User:dramatic. There are also equivalent articles for other countries in the same format. They are bordering on being a directory which is not what WP is about. Also, these articles are pushing the boundaries of what should be included in WP. Professional wrestling in New Zealand is a suitable topic but not lists such as this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those who are suggesting an article for "Professional Wrestling in New Zealand" this has already been looked into and it fails the GNG. There have been no significant promotions in the country's history (unlike Australia for example) and what's there now is essentially nothing even though two promotions pass the notability test. But that's as individual promotions only - and they don't represent the scene as a whole. !! Justa Punk !! 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not enough promotions to justify this listing. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are only 3, hardly worth creating a separate article. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G12 Table is a blatant copy. AinslieL (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable list. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (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.