Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyst 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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Catalyst Wrestling}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyst Wrestling}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Catalyst Wrestling}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. Star Mississippi 01:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

=[[:Catalyst Wrestling]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Catalyst Wrestling}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Catalyst Wrestling}})

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Half the current references are WP:NOTRELIABLE according to WP:PW/RS and a search didn't show any potential to fix it.

Edit: and the rest of the sources are also unreliable (WP:USERGENERATED) or trivial mentions (WP:ORGTRIV). Spagooder (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

: Keep - as I said when I removed the soft delete, there are RS sources cited that are all entirely about the company. Perhaps you should show why you feel the sources are not RS instead of compound delete noming? The talk page was available for discussion... Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:: Nominator also states "half the references" are not RS... which seems to imply the rest are fine for asserting notability (?) ... this feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:::Response You wrote it, so it's understandable that you'd be defensive of it. Per PW/RS — "Avoid using these sources. They report rumors, speculation, and have no reliable sourcing (where they get their information from)." If you scroll to the bottom, you'd see footnotes listing some specifics. In the case of Wrestling Estate, which you used 3 times, it's a "fan website with no visible oversight." Those are just the ones immediately disqualified by PW/RS, which I said in my original reasoning. If you have further questions about their rationale, please reach out to them.

:::Now, let's evaluate the other sources—Jersey City Upfront is a "hyper-local blog" ("generally unacceptable" per WP:UGC) and Alliance-Wrestling is "the premier fan site for the National Wrestling Alliance, blogging" ("generally unacceptable" again). Fightful is a reliable secondary source but its 2 uses were for results (trivial coverage that does not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement, per WP:ORGTRIV) and Last Word on Sports looks like it could be a reliable secondary source, but it's just a local event preview (again, trivial coverage).

:::This article would need a full rehaul to meet the minimum standard but I haven't seen anything to show me that's currently possible. Spagooder (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.