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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Main article should be recreated, as Osaka Pro Wrestling is a notable promotion. Speedy deletion was inappropriate, as time should have ben given for the article to be expanded to establish notability. The tag team division, which includes such wrestlers as Jushin Liger (rated the #12 wrestler in the world for the cumulative period spanning 1991-2000), is also notable and discussed in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that "G8" is not a legitimate reason for speedy deletion, as the criteria are nowhere close to this situation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has there been a request for the main article to be restored? That process would be significant in the future of this article. RICKME DOODLEYOU DOODLE 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there hasn't been an application for a DRV re the promotion, this has to go. GetDumb 07:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Get Dumb. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article and the article on the promotion are different articles, and the article on the title is not dependent on the promotion's article. The promotion's article should be re-created, but its current existence or lack thereof is not relevant here. Remember that there is no time limit taken into account during deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you go to DRV with that issue? You're undermining your own argument by not doing so. The article here is related to the deleted article, and is very much dependent on it when it comes to consistency. Why keep a title of a promotion that doesn't have an article on the promotion? How about getting the DRV going if you're serious about that. GetDumb 07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent more than enough time at DRV lately rescuing other articles. I'm in the middle of another major project right now and don't have the time or energy, nor am I interested in the conflict and animosity that flow so freely there. If the championship article is kept, the promotion's article will be re-created (remember WP:NOTIMELIMIT?). If you would like, of course, you are more than welcome to take the promotion's article to DRV or to rewrite it from the beginning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTIMELIMIT is not policy. It's an essay only. I've never heard of the promotion so right now I think it shouldn't be here. It's up to you to prove it should, not me. You made the claims. GetDumb 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Your comment "I've never heard of the promotion so right now I think it shouldn't be here" is a terrible inclusion rationale for any Encyclopedia. If Wikipedia only held what I know, or had heard of, it would be very, very limited. Admittedly, I cant find refs either, other than VHS tape of some major games, but maybe language bias is the reason. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @278 · 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep per Jpatokal's assertion that there are reliable sources in Japanese for this wrestling championship. Cunard (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NSPORT offers virtually zero guidance on the notability of sports leagues or even individual wrestlers, although you can infer that "major" pro leagues are considered notable. Osaka Pro Wrestling would seem to qualify, as it has a substantial article in Japanese (see ja:大阪プロレス), with the championship winners list (== this article) here. I would suggest DRV'ing the main article and putting this on hold until that's sorted out. Jpatokal (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That is exactly what I thought, language bias. Unfortunately, Google translate cannot help me, a web-address with Japanese characters is reported to me as "invalid". Wikipedia itself is not a valid RS - so perhaps you could you say if there are RS in the Japanese article, does it meet WP:V?, as this would permit this AfD to close as keep, giving time to editors to transfer the sources. Also, could you give a link to the Japanese version of Osaka Pro Wrestling and inform if there are RS there as well, as this will ease the DRV process greatly. Thanks again for your prompt reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? The Japanese version is at ja:大阪プロレス, although (as usual on ja-WP) it's poorly referenced, with only a single site to Osaka Nichi-Nichi Shimbun (which I'd judge a RS). A search for 大阪プロレス on your favorite Japanese news search engine, eg. Yahoo, returns dozens of hits to various Japanese sports mags covering their events. Jpatokal (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you. Note: Yesterday I approached the admin that speedied Osaka Pro Wrestling to have him reverse the delete, to spare us dragging it through DRV. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment at WT:JP#Help with "Osaka Pro Wrestling" regarding reliable Japanese wrestling sites. Thought it would help discussion there more than here.--WillC 11:11, 14 August 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.