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. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Xero Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable local promotion company. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The inclusion in Pro Wrestling Illustrated seems to be giving some depth to the notability claim, but I was unable to find a reference to this organization in PWI's pages. More sources need to be provided. If they can be presented, I'll be more than happy to suggest a keep, but at the moment I don't think I have a reason to. McMarcoP (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be helpful if this claimed reference could be verified in the print edition. Even with that though, additional references in 3rd party sources would be necessary to bring this topic up to notability standards.--RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PWI rankings appeared in the double issue featuring Tara/Victoria on the cover. I will try to find the exact month/issue. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009

Comment GXW has as many or more article under Google news as other promotions with articles including Ultimate Pro Wrestling, World League Wrestling, United Wrestling Federation, Empire Wrestling Federation, Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009

Comment I'm not following you. Are you saying that the company is referred to as GWX in news coverage and thats why its difficult to find? Could you provide some links to these articles? Better yet, improve the article with citations to these articles.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI was trying to create a point that a Google News search might not be relevant in this case since low to no hits. The some that do usually only refer to a person associated with the promotion googled, not the promotion itselfPatricksu (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2009

CommentWhen you ask for sources, do you want specific newspaper, TV, and books or will blogs and chat room stuff do? Patricksu (talk) 2:38, 28 August 2009

Comment I'm afraid that blogs and chat rooms wouldn't be enough, anyone can fake them (not that I am implying that you are faking them or would do so). Newspapers and books (online editions are easier to verify, as you can understand) would be much more helpful to your claim. McMarcoP (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [edited to fix my own mistype McMarcoP (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Comment No, blogs and message boards are not reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'right, same thing I meant myself, tried to avoid being negative and maybe I was a bit confusing. McMarcoP (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources, let me know which would count as "acceptable" Patricksu (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009

Comment none of these appear to be very reliable sources. I'm no wrestling expert but these appear to be blogs or produced by the company itself. Hasn't there been any press coverage? There are dozens of wrestling magazines on the newstands, haven't any of them written about this company?--RadioFan (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment, but delete, per nom: lack of coverage to pass WP:GNG. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sources are limited and questionable. No mainstream coverage and nothing else to make it notable. !! Justa Punk !! 00:19, 4 September 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.