Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style Battle

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 no consensus. New sources presented, but their reliability is questioned. No conclusive result, and given that it's been open so long, I doubt an extra relist would help. ansh 666 06:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style Battle

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

Delete PROD removed with no explanation. No indications of notability, written in a promotional tone, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - No need to remove. It needs expansion, sure, but not deletion. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The WON source is fine, but the other two are from unreliable sources. One source is not significant coverage. Nikki♥311 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are right now two good sources in the article. WON and ProWrestling.net are reliable sources. Not sure if that is enough.
talk) 14:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Add I've also found these [1], [2], [3] from PWInsider and these from PWTorch [4], [5], [6], [7], which are relibale.
  talk) 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete - Not notable. Also those sources are not reliable imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well your opinion is rather irrelevant since it has already been agreed that these sources qualify as reliable, and considering that all you've ever done on the wrestling project seems to be trying to delete articles, (some of which were notable), I'd say you have a pretty obvious bias.

talk) 20:37, 14 November 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.