Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack! Pro 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 keep. SoWhy 08:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Pro Wrestling

Attack! Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lack of GNG sources and the article reads like an ad. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Receives pretty regular coverage from Wrestling Observer Newsletter and others listed at
  WP:PW/RS.[1].LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pete Dunne is the current WWE UK Champion; how is his UK promotion "non-notable"?--CheShA (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a valid keep argument. Please see
    WP:NOTINHERITED. The promotion is not notable just because its owner is notable. It has to be notable in its own right by having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 21:52, 28 May 2017 (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.