Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact Pro Wrestling
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 delete. Practically no coverage, almost all unsourced and makes little claim on WP:N. Black Kite 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impact Pro Wrestling
- Impact Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Makes no claim to notability at all and lacks third party sources. Was previously deleted via a PROD under Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand) hence the AfD on this occasion. It's sister promotion Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia) was deleted via AfD. Badly fails WP:ORG !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Maybe if it is not notable enough I could merge it with all the New Zeland wrestling companies into an article called "Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand". Is that OK? WWE Socks 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. As it's not notable it shouldn't be part of any article. !! Justa Punk !! 22:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think that professional wrestling in New Zealand is very notable (just like professional wrestling in Australia). So I will make an article about it including WWE tours and such and IPW will be mentioned in it. Thanks WWE Socks 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can find many sources that indicates that IPW is in fact a legitimate company and can find other sources other than NZPWI and it's website, will the page be re-considered for deletion? It was the original reason why the page "Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand)" was deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page has been updated, to include various references in which IPW is mentioned & appeared in, will update page over the next week and a half. --DaTruGunJack (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also mention that the company was founded by a GROUP of people, and nominated three people, Charles Warner, Nick Fergusson and Cameron Bailey to be directors of the group, which clearly states in WP:ORG that "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." On their website it proves just that, even from the day they debuted and also their notablilty can be found extensively on NZPWI.co.nz. Note as well at the bottom of IPW website says "Impact Entertainment Ltd. All Rights Reserved" So with all the evidence in the world to prove that they are a notable organization, there should be no reason why the Impact Pro Wrestling page should be deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a group is an organization, it doesn't mean that they are a notable one. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Therefore, to prove this wrestling promotion is notable, reliable independent sources need to be added. How is NZPWI.co.nz reliable? Are they different from any other wrestling "news" site? What is their fact checking? Nikki♥311 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NZPWI.co.nz is not like other wrestling "news" sites in that they do interviews (both written and audio) with many former & current TNA & WWE stars, examples like JBL, RVD, Christopher Daniels, AJ Styles and even Shane McMahon, they have also co-ordinated with other companies to promote international wrestling tours, which include the upcoming Hulkamania tour and TNA tour that's being held in Australia, the tour by WWA in 2003, which was the predecessor to TNA (The show in New Zealand was the last show made by WWA before merging with TNA) and all the WWE tours since 2006, yes they do post rummors but that does not take main priorty, instead it's logged into a section on their website called "Newsboard" and even then the rumors are usually credited as coming from PWInsider & 411mania. I can give more examples if neeed be. --115.189.146.205 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a group is an organization, it doesn't mean that they are a notable one. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Therefore, to prove this wrestling promotion is notable, reliable independent sources need to be added. How is NZPWI.co.nz reliable? Are they different from any other wrestling "news" site? What is their fact checking? Nikki♥311 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also mention that the company was founded by a GROUP of people, and nominated three people, Charles Warner, Nick Fergusson and Cameron Bailey to be directors of the group, which clearly states in WP:ORG that "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." On their website it proves just that, even from the day they debuted and also their notablilty can be found extensively on NZPWI.co.nz. Note as well at the bottom of IPW website says "Impact Entertainment Ltd. All Rights Reserved" So with all the evidence in the world to prove that they are a notable organization, there should be no reason why the Impact Pro Wrestling page should be deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page has been updated, to include various references in which IPW is mentioned & appeared in, will update page over the next week and a half. --DaTruGunJack (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can find many sources that indicates that IPW is in fact a legitimate company and can find other sources other than NZPWI and it's website, will the page be re-considered for deletion? It was the original reason why the page "Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand)" was deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think that professional wrestling in New Zealand is very notable (just like professional wrestling in Australia). So I will make an article about it including WWE tours and such and IPW will be mentioned in it. Thanks WWE Socks 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. As it's not notable it shouldn't be part of any article. !! Justa Punk !! 22:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Maybe if it is not notable enough I could merge it with all the New Zeland wrestling companies into an article called "Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand". Is that OK? WWE Socks 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The sources used are not reliable third party sources due to the small size of the industry in New Zealand (only three feds it appears). There needs to be wider coverage provided. The fact that it exists is irrelevant like Nikki said. It must pass WP:N as well as WP:ORG and at present it doesn't. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 06:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the pro wrestling industry is small compared to that of Australia, Japan & the US, but there is more than three promotions in New Zealand. There is SCW (Southern Championship Wrestling) based in Blenehim in the South Island. AWE (Aotearoa Wrestling Entertainment) based in Wellington. And the now defuncted PWE (Pro Wrestling Entertainment) which was based in Auckland. The sources that are given as references are given as proof. The Youtube clips which were used as references, was put there because a) NZ content can only be viewed in New Zealand and b) the content previously existed on the relevant companies website, but no longer exsists and can only be found on Youtube. If I have to spend many nights trying to grab as many sources and information as such then I will, but I must point out that if IPW can't be notable because it lacks third-party sources then why is KPW & NZWPW able to continue normally despite the fact that they get most of their refernences from NZPWI, their own website & nzwrestling.com (Which I might add nzwrestling.com links doesn't work) --DaTruGunJack (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KPW is notable because of who's in charge - Butch Miller. Not sure about the other one. Of the sources you claim there are, how many pass WP:RS. Just because it's a source doesn't mean it helps. !! Justa Punk !! 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the NZWPW article, and it has links to other professions in combat sports and to notable areas at that. !! Justa Punk !! 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; I've removed the TV info from Media because that's community TV and therefore not notable. History remains unsourced completely. !! Justa Punk !! 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw that, thanks for the heads up, Alt TV was not community tv, that was a national channel. CTV is not community TV, it's ranked possibly as a Regional channel & Triangle Stratos is a national channel as well. I should mention (and this will be put into the page as well) that "The Deal" Dal Knox was in fact ranked in this years PWI Top 500. I'm not going to argue, but only work on improving this article. --DaTruGunJack (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete History unsourced and no significant coverage noted. Brief appearances not significant. Note to WWE Socks who says NZ industry is as notable as Australian; Did NZ ever have a fed like Jim Barnett's World Championship Wrestling? That's why Professional wrestling in Australia is notable and gets an article. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of reliable, objective third-party sources is damning here. Promotional companies dealing with this organization are clearly going to play-up its significance. Admittedly, some of these sites include rumors, which certainly damages credibility. I don't see how it passes WP:ORG. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:18, 30 October 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.