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. J04n(talk page) 22:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWWA Championship[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 101.172.85.56, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is copied below. On the merits... let's put it this way - it's not a good sign for your notability when your champions are all redlinks. But I make no recommendation at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This title is not in any way notable and makes no attempt to establish notability. 101.172.85.56 (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget the redlink champions for a second... The company that the belt represents is a redlink.LM2000 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a concern, yes. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find much info on the org that holds this championship. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the IP. As others have also stated, the company alone isn't notable, so the championship certainly isn't. — Richard BB 11:14, 29 May 2013 (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.