Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia

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. No independent sources have been found, so, at present, this article fails the verifiability policy. Notability has been asserted by those arguing to keep, but in the absence of any secondary information it is impossible to verify. This article can be recreated if and when some independent sources are found. Trebor 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia

Contested prod, non notable wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, the promotion has the following accomplishments:

NWA Virginia was tied for the number one independent wrestling organization in the world in 2003 and 2004.(Tied with Bill Behrin's NWA Wildside)
NWA Virginia's staff were tied for the number one independent wrestling promoters in the world in 2003 and 2004.(Tied with Bill Behrin's NWA Wildside)
NWA contestants, Kiley McLean and Kameo, were ranked the number one independent female wrestlers in the the world. (Tied)
NWA Virginia's Senior Referee, Jeff Capo, was ranked as the number one independent referee in the world in 2003 and 2004.

Those seem to be some notable items. I would agree that the page may need cleaned up and sourced, but I believe that is something the pro-wrestling project is working on, just no one has gotten to that article yet (it would be considered a low priority part of the project).Theophilus75 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An employee of the company with an undisclosed conflict of interest, User:JeffCapo created the article and has been editing it, and recently contested the prod and had the article undeleted. The article as it stands is little more than spam, there's no real assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question What makes WWE's website a verifiable source and NWA Virginia's site a non-verifiable source? If the problem with the article is really WP:COI, why didn't you recommend it for deletion based on that instead of on WP:CORP & WP:V? As I said before, I would agree that the page may need cleaned up and sourced, but I believe that is something the pro-wrestling project is working on, just no one has gotten to that article yet (it would be considered a low priority part of the project). If you really wanted to help the pro-wrestling project, wouldn't it be better for you to make sure it is tagged as part of the project (since it never was) instead of marking it for deletion? If it was tagged then it would on the list of pages to work on correcting (wrestling articles aren't the only articles on this site that need cleaned up.Theophilus75 07:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unaware of who has told you that WWE's website is a reliable source, but I can simply say that per policy WP:V if an article topic has no reliable third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Believe it or not I am helping out the pro-wrestling project, as there are literally hundreds of articles that do not meet Wikipedia requirements on notability or sourcing. Sadly the project members which to rabidly defend every four sentence stub on a wrestler who appears in front of 15 people in Kentucky once a month, rather than concentrate on the hundreds of unsourced articles on notable wrestlers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just assuming that you viewed WWEs website as a reliable source since there are hundreds of articles that you don't recommend Afd for that have nothing other than WWEs website as their source. I am fully aware that that Wikipedia is not a wrestling website and that a wrestler who has only wrestled for a small independent promotion does not meet WP:BIO. I don't disagree with you that many wrestling articles are not properly sourced, nor would I disagree with you that they have POV problems and haven't (yet) established notability...but I believe, and Wikipedia policy suggests, tagging those articles to be fixed rather than just throwing out an Afd. Just because you don't feel something is notable does not mean that it isn't. Likewise, just because someone put up an article without establishing notability doesn't mean that it can't be done.Theophilus75 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theophilus75. Govvy 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to provide some sources so it doesn't fail WP:CORP and WP:V then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's got that comment saved to his clipboard. Theophilus75 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theophilus75. It is the editor's responsibility to attempt what they can to fix a page: prodding it should only occur when the article is unfixable. If the article is flawed, then the correct Wikipedian response is to edit it to be unflawed.

Comment Fixing the COI problems doesn't solve the company failing notability guidelines. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the promotion is notable and the article just needs some sourcing. It might be a lot easier to just recommend it for deletion, but the far more appropriate reaction would be to actually try to help the article. Jeff Silvers 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is what everyone has failed to do to date, including someone involved with the promotion. Please, someone, show me the sources! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that someone involved with the promotion working on the article would be considered a COI, resulting in you recommending it for deletion for that reason...am I wrong? Theophilus75 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the nomination at the top clearly says they fail WP:CORP and WP:V, and despite everyone saying "Keep" they still fail both. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:02, 19 May 2007 (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.