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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia[edit]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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 that takes in all but two of the promotions listed here) and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. 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. Recreation of article deleted via Prod ("List of wrestling promotions in the Australia"). !! Justa Punk !! 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 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]

• Comment. As per my response here. I specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod. While I was unable to provide additional references for all the promotions, I did add a number of news articles to many current promotions but only a few for the defunct ones. I would not have objected to the removal of said entres, however, the nominator's assertion that the "vast majority" are non-notable is incorrect. the editor's claims that this is an attempt to list "every" promotion in Australia, or that this is an attempt to advertise these promotions, is misleading and in bad faith. That the nominator's insistance there are no notable wrestling promotions in Australia, or there are not enough to compile a listing, suggests systemic bias. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of promotions have already had articles deleted. As I am in Australia, I will check the references - and I'm willing to bet they are unreliable under WP rules. It's happened before with things like press releases (which are not allowed) and fan sites. !! Justa Punk !! 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much - four of them were press releases/advertising. They have been removed per WP:RS. !! Justa Punk !! 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete [COPYVIO] Mal Case (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per Mal Case. Also WP:NOT, as this is a directory without a doubt. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Note: The nominator has removed several valid references from the article during this deletion discussion. This is a tactic used by several of his allies, and supported by the nominator, in a previous deletion discussion. Because of the irregularities caused by their insistence to not have the article viewed on its merits, the result was declared invalid. If, as the nominator claims, the references are invalid, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to remove them during this discussion. If people commenting in the discussion don't agree with the sources, the article would be deleted. They should be given a chance to decide for themselves, however. I trust that the closing administrator will have the decency to make it clear that pushing one's point of view as the nominator has done is unacceptable on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - the references removed were press releases/advertisements. They were therefore not valid under WP:RS and the removal was perfectly reasonable. To impute that it will make a difference between deletion and non-deletion is bluntly ridiculous. Such refs should be removed no matter what. !! Justa Punk !! 10:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per Mal Case also under CSD G12. AinslieL (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, CSD G12 concerns aside, most of this is excessive detail. List of professional wrestling promotions is not so large that promotions with sources and the like cannot be added in there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 14 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.