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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate World Championship[edit]

Pure original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POV. Article is built with inappropriate opinions and definitely WP:ORIGINAL. Zoo Fari 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SPEEDY DELETE per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and speedy delete criteria #7 no CREDIBLE claim of significance or importance of the article's SUBJECT OfficeGirl (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we are dealing with a case of WP:SNOW. OfficeGirl (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODd-ed it first so no speedy is possible, but I do think this will be a snow-closure before the 7 days are up. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely false. No such distinction exists. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:ONEDAY applies. Tavix | Talk 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this appears to be what he created after he was yelled at for altering the Grand Slam Championship page. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely made up. Nikki♥311 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the violation of WP:OR. I think this may also violate WP:NOTDIR due to it's purely statistical nature and base. It's not a real name as such. The real name is Grand Slam champion as mentioned. Mal Case (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uhh, I think someone who won every wrestling circuit championship would be called something else...Blacklisted because they jumped promotions and ticked off every circuit president for doing so. Total bollocks. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete, this "distinction",as put so eloquently, has been recognized by both TNA and the IWGP in the forms of Jeff Jarret and Kurt Angle, like I said on Darrenhusted's talk page most people do not recognize this title because of its rarity. Mike Tenay and Don West both made comments about this in promos for Jeff Jarret and Kurt Angles rematch and during Angles entrance if that enough verification then it cannot be verified what do you want me to do post a link of the video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshman5000 (talk • contribs)

Do I don't want you to link to the video as it would change nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because I just went an checked their rematch from Genesis 2009. West nor Tenay say anything about this championship nor talk about any championships Angle or Jarrett have ever won. They talk only about their feud.--WillC 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one where he angle slammed jeff off the stage they talk about it before the promo and during kurts entrance you might want to check again and if you can find kurt vs brock for the IWGP title with captions they talked about it their as wellWrestlings Savior (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would fail WP:V and WP:RS, and still would fail WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Freshman, what you said there is original research. Have you read WP:OR? Provide evidence of what you say consistent with WP:RS and WP:V. If you can't do it, then under the rules of this site it has to go. What part of that don't you understand? This championship does not exist and should be deleted quick smart. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't exist, so no article is necessary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this thing now Completely made up.--WillC 21:28, 29 June 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.