Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchy Championship Wrestling

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Championship Wrestling

Notability has yet to be established. In my search I have yet to find a reliable third party reference, only primary sources. I am also nominating the following related pages since if this one is not found notable, then neither are these:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --WillC 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish notability, does not provide sources and is almost a walled garden group of articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a good primary source would be a story in the Austin Chronicle that discusses the promotion in detail ([1]). It also has enough mentions in other relaible third-party sources to help establish notability per the General Notability Guideline ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."). I believe that I could turn this article into something worthwhile if given a chance. Putting a one-week time limit on it during an AfD doesn't really help, though, as I have no idea what the next few days will bring. I will commit to improving it, though, in a timely manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources. And watch the newspapers because they publish press releases which constitutes advertising. That requires care. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not an advertising piece. It is a newspaper story. Feel free to actually read it before commenting on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to apologise because I was not talking about your link. I was talking about newspaper sources in general when it comes to wrestling. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 04:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you just brought up a completely irrelevant point here because...? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRRELEVANT??? We were talking about newspaper sources weren't we? You're being insular and that is inpinging on your ability to contribute constructively to this discussion! All you want to do is assume bad faith every chance you get just because someone doesn't agree with you. Open your mind, mate! RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the important word in GNG is significant, even if the promo has received significant coverage (which at this time it hasn't) then the belts have received no coverage, and as notability is not inherited even if the promo page can be saved the belts cannot. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Almost no wrestling titles have multiple articles written about them. I would hope that you don't believe that most of the articles should be deleted. At any rate, they can all be merged into the main ACW page quite easily. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Small, non-notable promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Needs sources and quick smart. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:26, 14 July 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.