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 keep. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Championship Wrestling[edit]

Main Event Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Zero google news hits. Only 'coverage' is MECW's own website. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed the previous decision. Went for CSD. We can keep this open just in case though. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it will probably be speedily deleted. If not, it still fails WP:A and WP:N, just as the original did: Google is full of dubious hits, essentially clutter, and has no news sources whatsoever.  Mephistophelian † 03:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with help from MECW fans and internet savvy people (unlike myself), we've gone from zero references to 24 very valid reference links of reports, coverage, news and history. Will this help keep this page online? Also, there have been multiple updates waiting for response under the articles discussion page. Thanks Jason Briley 04:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbriley (talk • contribs)

• Keep: I believe that the sources added do assert notability. I think this shows that the article has potential and should be kept; on a separate note, the article will need some fixing to incorporate the references into the text as inline citations rather than just a list at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryColemanFan (talk • contribs)

Updated with inline citations. Should be good to go. --68.179.137.105 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the improvements have justified inclusion. Shiva (Visnu) 06:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, most of those sources aren't reliable. However, the Courier Press and Slam are reliable and are enough to establish minor notability. Nikki♥311 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the improvements along with the sources are valid, as they include history, news and results of past events. this page should be kept and the deletion and citation tags should be removed. also, already relisted once and it's been 14 days since creation 68.179.137.105 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2011 (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.