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 all. Anas ^talk? 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Championship Wrestling[edit]

It’s a small time wrestling company that existed from 2001 to 2003 and never did anything to achieve notability. Only aired on local TV never getting any widespread distribution. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:V

I am also nominating the following related pages because: They are title pages for the shortlived PCW and should be deleted if the main article is deleted

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - simply not notable enough for Wiki in my view.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - I was going to AfD this myself, not notable. Darrenhusted 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Nikki311 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, ditto-not notableMissnamine 15:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; these pages are linked into bio's of notable wrestlers such as Charlie Haas. It does not fail WP:V; the information is verifiable to the TV archives, etc. John Vandenberg 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and The Rock had won the Phoenix Championship title it would not make them notable. And if the results are already available on another site then there is no pressing need to keep them here, Wikipedia is not a free website. Darrenhusted 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you using as the basis of your decision that this is not notable? So far you have not described why it is appropriate to delete it; you have just listed policies and guidelines. Wake Up! WA is a local show as well, yet it passed through the fire of an Afd. Our core notability criteria doesnt require that a company have done much except having been noticed (being on TV sure does that). These championship victorys are recorded as part of the history of notable wrestlers, so readers of Wikipedia will ask "I wonder how important that championship victory was?" -- you want to hinder the readers ability to satisfy their curiosity; I would prefer we keep the articles and explain that it was a minor championship that didnt last very long. Also, I find it highly unlikely that there would be no newspaper coverate of this. Which of these articles contains factual problems that you would like verification for? Also, Wikipedia includes lots of information that is available elsewhere; we keep it here so that it is freely available under the GFDL. Note to the closer, wikia may be a wiki on this subject; not all of these articles being considered for deletion have been copied there. John Vandenberg 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the policy of WP:COMPANY, which in case you have not read it states

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

In other words "being noticed" = covered by secondary reliable sources. That's it. that other stuff has passed through AFD is neither here nor there in this discussion, the subject here is PCW and if it lives up to the notability guideline set up in WP:COMPANY, obviously I don't think so which is why I put this up for AFD MPJ-DK 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with it being listed at AFD, as it is borderline. However, this isnt just a company; they have issued titles to people, and they were also on TV regularly. Besides, I am pretty sure that there will be coverage in offline resources. John Vandenberg 14:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got issues of Power Slam and PWI going back 8 years, not a single mention of substance that I can find. Darrenhusted 22:28, 26 June 2007 (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.