Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Crown Championship (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Triple Crown Championship}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Triple Crown Championship}})

The page is full of WP:OR and doesn't establish notability. The references are either primary sources or sources that don't speak about the Triple Crown in particular, and a reliable third party source that lists all the Triple Crowns is non-existent. The topic isn't covered by enough reliable third-party sources and the list has frankly been considered cruft by many users for a long time. Feedback ^☎ 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Feedback ^☎ 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - deleting this article would be like stating that the term doesn't or was never recognized by promotions to exist to begin with. Instead of nominating for deletion, you could have attempted to source the article yourself or revamp it so that it has better sourcing. In this case, I oppose deletion based on the fact that the term is legitimate and the championship has been acknowledged before by various corporations. I do, however, feel that because WWE has not used the term or "title" ever since probably the times when Shawn Michaels first won it, its not relevant or accurate to insist its existence on the behalf of WWE after a known date (esp after the brand extension). TNA has constantly used the term and praises the champions like A.J. Styles till this day as one of those men who are Triple Crown Champions. In terms of other promotions, I have no idea. If its a must to remove all information I would favor merging this article with Championship (professional wrestling). --Truco ⁵⁰³ 23:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is a term that is used by several promotions, and secondary sources for use of the term are easy to find. Since wrestling promotions control their own championship history (unlike other sports, wrestling promotions have been known to add or remove title reigns), sourcing with mainly primary sources is a good idea. All the problems mentioned in this nomination are either irrelevant or easy to fix. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Insanely Strong Keep

I have put a lot of work into this article and so have others. It would be a waist to delete it. It has lots of links and there are from WWE.com, TNAWRESTLING.com, and ROHWRESTLING.com, so its official, its real, and it should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep

It is a legitimate accolade that is acheived in at least 4 promotions that recognize it. It has sources to back up what qualifies to acheive it.

If WWE for example says you need A, B, and C to qualify, who are we to say it's not?

It's their titles, it's their rules.

Vjmlhds 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• VERY Strong Keep This is well sourced to back up any claims that could constitute original research. Primary sources are sufficient, and this can not be described as "cruft" in any way because of it's inherent notability. Ultra X987 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.