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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Page was previously nominated for deletion. Result was to stubify in order to attempt to prove notability. Nothing has been added to the article which proves notability, only to recreate what was removed by stubify. Galatz^Talk 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the status-quo is being abused and can not continue. The subject is minimally notable. I think there are two options:

1. Stubify again (i.e. remove all the wretched tables and all the unreferenced and badly referenced claims) and then protect the article.
2. Delete the whole thing and let that be a lesson to them. :-p

My gut says delete but I'd be happy with either, so long as it puts a stop to the timewasting. I'd also like to see a wider sweep for fancruft in articles about other semi-notable Pro-Wrestling promotions. (But then I don't really have any right to demand other people do that that given that I took one look at it, considered doing so, and then promptly lost the will to live.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Heavily promoted article by both fans and WP:PAID crowd. No notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We've tried to work with this and establish notability but it just hasn't happened. Unfortunately, the article has just become a mecca for fans to add cruft.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, this needs to be Salted. This article has been deleted previously via AfD under its former name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling. The subject may become notable at some point, which is why it got stubbed in the first place, but our good faith has been abused too much in this case. It should go through the draft process before it gets accepted to the mainspace.LM2000 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not strongly pushing for a delete myself (although I'm also not against it) but whatever outcome we do reach needs to be enforced this time. Everybody here has got better things to do than fight to keep this one article under control. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Scope creep, and LM2000. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify and Page Protect - I don't really like the idea of just doing a hard delete for a topic that we've agreed to be notible, and we have things in place to be able to keep articles like this from being bloated. I'm also against a blanket sweep of articles about professional wrestling, or any other genre. If an article is notible, it should really stay, but it does need to be stable. I am very disapointed that we have had to have users completely ignore consensus on two seperate occasions for this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was it agreed that it is notable? The original closure said there was no consensus on it. - Galatz^Talk 12:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read back the original discussion, you are spot on. I thought it was a lot more people saying we should stubify to remove cruft, but that the idea was notible, but it seems as though people were leaning delete. Actually, you were one of the few people voting keep! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was. But I felt the consensus was leaning against what I felt. Based on that I feel no additional notability has been established, which is why I nominated it again. - Galatz^Talk 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AfD is not the right venue to request page protection, nor to decide on the article content. If the main subject of the article is 'fancruft'(?) and that is not notable, then it should be questioned if the article is actually notable, since an article cannot become less notable via people adding content. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
  • Correct it is not. The issue is that the original closure was to stubify in order to attempt to product notability. The current version of the page has 35 references. 15 of these are some form of WP:PRIMARY. Another 5 are to CageMatch, which is only an RS for results, not to prove notability. Many of the other sources included are not listed as a RS on WP:PW/RS. - Galatz^Talk 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and a permanent one This self-promoted so-called wrestling championship is a pre-scripted entertainmment event. WP:NSPORT doesn't apply. I can see nothing that meets WP:GNG - and innumerable non WP:RS sources keep yo-yo-ing back in and out after the previous no consensus !vote with which I was not involved. (I note it was stubify - but we're back to circa 23,000 bytes already. Oops, no, that was this morning. Now it's at 42,900) I did, however, innocently AfD three new Defiant Wrestling-related pages created by SPI's and then got drawn into this sorry saga of likely WP:PAID, but definitely WP:COI-editing by sockpuppets - of which it looks like we have another one sprung up since Corageione et al were blocked for SPI. But the content from those three non-Notable AFD-ed pages then magically reappeared inside this one, which itself is of dubious notability - or non-notable as I interpret it. Show us the reliable, independent sources which have covered this subject in depth and then I'll withdraw my !vote. We're being abused by promoters - plain and simple. This isn't a case of WP:TNT - this topic now needs a hard delete, and with page recreation prevented. I'm pinging @Spartaz:, the closing admin the first time around who said: If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF I think we know where this now needs to go. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Changing my vote to Delete and Salt scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt based on the background given by Nick Moyes.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. I'll be userfying this, as it has over a dozen reliable/non-routine sources, but it should go through the draft process. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 5 February 2018 (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.