Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Action 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 both ("The shark" already deleted at the time of closing). Daniel (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Action Wrestling

I doubt the notability of this, editors appear to have possible COI. AWA Superstars of Wrestling affiliation MAY be a claim, but I am not sure.

Also this also applies to Arvy Hobbs and its weird duplicate The shark. ViperSnake151 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:BIO where applicable- I can't find any reliable secondary sources on the internet talking about them. Try searching for "AWA Australia wrestling" and see where it gets you; not far. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ViperSnake151 & Mendaliv- I am currently new to wikipedia as a user and am not sure how to contact neither of you, so i have posted here instead. AWA Affiliation with All Action Wrestling is real, we are even noticed on their website as the only Australian territory and this also applies to our website witch is monitered by the AWA from time to time; You can check on these at www.awastars.com & www.awaaustralia.com. As for the diplicate of The shark on my own article, even I was not aware of this. If you could help me get rid of that, that would be excelent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killah AAW (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I have no doubt that it's a real organization/group that may well have a real affiliation as suggested above. The problem is that All Action Wrestling lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:CORP (see WP:PSTS for more information on what constitutes secondary sources). Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but I don't see anything on the 'net that meets those criteria. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should point out that editing articles regarding a subject in which you have a personal stake (such as yourself or a company you work for) is considered a conflict of interest and strongly discouraged. If you work for this company, you shouldn't touch these articles with a ten-foot pole. — Gwalla | Talk 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shark could be a candidate for Speedy Deletion as a duplicate page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Moondyne 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Action Wrestling and Arvy Hobbs. Non-notable and no independent reviews or media reports on either, therefore unverifiable. Author has a conflict of interest - refer WP:BIO. Clearly this is self-promotion. When the organisation grows and receives independent media coverage it may then become encyclopaedic. Right now it isn't. Moondyne 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the conflict of interest is not a good start, but notability and sources are also a problem. So a deletion as this point may be best, and userfy so that the article may be salvaged at a later date if notability arises. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A move to a user subpage, so attribution can be retained when deleting the mainspace redirect, is probably ideal. — Gwalla | Talk 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N is not satisfied as there does not appear to be enough secondary sources on this organisation. No objection to userfying it if the article creator wishes it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)}.

Reply - So how much media coverage do we exactly need? Do we need to be on a global scale and be known through out the world because if so that is rediculous. Ive found many indy promotions across the world who are recocgnized on wikipedia on the article of List of independent wrestling promotions and even All Action Wrestling was deleted from that in the Australian section. If you need media coverage we are recocgnised in local papers of our home teritory but I have no idea how you would get your hands on them. And some other websites that we are recocgnized on would be www.wrestling.net.au and even other wrestling promotion websites such as www.pwaelite.com. Also, if I were not to create the article on All Action Wrestling then who would? The only person who could create an article on a certain company would have to be a member of the company themselves wouldnt they? Otherwise, that would meen you'se have been letting 'smart-marks' create articles on company's that they have absolutely nothing to do with. How else could it be included in the article of how AAW started and its early day's as a company? Please explain these things to me as I do not understand. Killah 9-0-G (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Verifiability tells you pretty much everything you need to know. — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 20 June 2008 (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.