Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to

WP:MfD
. But, more to the point, if you think something is not notable, don't even make it into a draft. Drafts are for things you expect to develop into real articles.

There's obviously disagreement about how this topic should be covered. There's clear consensus of the participants in this AfD that the 1986-1994 material should be covered in the main article, hence the merge.

WP:3O might be a way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994)

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994) (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 professional wrestling promotion. Moab12 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because two entities share the same name does not mean they should share the same article, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I created the "new" article to disambiguate the original NWF from the completely unrelated NWF. I find this to be the simplest way to have a deletion discussion on the NWF I believe is non notable, as it would confuse everyone to have a deletion discussion that only refers to half an article. Moab12 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not just remove the information from that page or start a discussion at the article's talk page or at
    WT:PW? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's been removed before, but since it's been stable in the article since August 2011 I figure it's best to have some sort of discussion rather than arbitrarily delete the content. I don't see it matters much whether we had the discussion here, the article's talk page or at
    WT:PW, this venue seemed more appropriate to me. Moab12 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Wrong place to have this discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the right place to have this discussion. Either this organisation is notable enough for its own article, or it isn't and it should be deleted. We don't merge unrelated organisations into one article because they share the same name. Moab12 (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems grossly wrong. The article was split to a new article; which you should only have done if you felt it did meet GNG. In this case, it's a content dispute, which should go with a regular consensus building talk. To be honest, it's quite likely the promotion in question probably is notable; so the discussion is a bit moot. The fact that the companies aren't the same makes no difference to if it should be in the same article. This should be closed and potentially merged/redirected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation we don't cover separate companies in the same article. Do you have any reliable sources to establish the notability of this NWF? Moab12 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2019 (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.