Melbourne City Wrestling is within the scope ofWikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related toprofessional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit theproject to-do page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and contribute todiscussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
Melbourne City Wrestling is within the scope ofWikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAustralia andAustralia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
No. Doesn't meetWP:GNG and here's why - one by one.
Beat Magazine - Covers one show and acts like a press release ("MCW is one of the largest professional wrestling companies in Australia"). Promotional. No truly independent proof of this claim.
Herald Sun 1 - In fact that's the local Preston Leader, not the Herald Sun. Not a mainstream source, and also promotional.
Vice - Also covers one show and doesn't demonstrate MCW's notability. Promotional.
Sydney Morning Herald - Promotes wrestlers, tryouts and WWE. Not MCW. Casual mention only.
Herald Sun 2 - Behind a paywall so it can't be used.
PWInsider 1 - Promotional for Progress wrestling and a casual mention of MCW only.
PWInsider 2 - Promotional for Kazuchika Okada and a casual mention of MCW only.
Fightful 1 - Casual mention of a show only. Promotional.
Fightful 2 - Briefly promotional for Evie/Dakota Kai and a casual mention of MCW only.
None of these prove that Melbourne City Wrestling passes the GNG guidelines. None of them provide significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (Beat, the Leader and Vice are not significant sources). Promotional material means the source is not secondary. The Leader is a press release without a doubt. Both the Beat and Vice are promoting the show based on what they saw and what they were told by promoters, especially in the case of the Beat.
You need better sources than this to prove this promotion is notable. Tag re-added, and it should be left until you provide truly independent and reliable sources that give true substantive coverage of the promotion that is not promotional.Addicted4517 (talk)08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you nominate it for deletion then? If it's not notable open it up to other editors to comment and we will find out. Right now, you are being disruptive. It is laughable you calling all these promotional, obviously you have aWP:NPOV problem.StaticVapormessage me!18:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it's you with the NPOV problem because you claim proper sources exist and yet you won't provide them, and still now you won't provide them. I'm giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong. It's called being fair and (shock horror) neutral. I'm giving others the chance as well. That's why it's correct to tag first as I have done. I'm not about to rush to an AfD just because you want me to. The onus is on you to improve the article with independent reliable sources that provide substantive coverage. The ball is now in your court.Addicted4517 (talk)20:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources establishing notability already posted in my response above. Not to mention sources that already exist in the article. Subject meetsWP: GNG, tagging is inappropriate, possibly in bad faith. I want you to take it AfD so we can achieve consensus, since obviously your opinion will not be swayed.StaticVapormessage me!23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not tell me what to do. ReviewWP:CIVIL please and while you are about it please also provide proper reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the subject. You have not done so, and please do not claim that you have. If you are correct there will be more. Please provide them. I am acting within the guidelines ofWP:NPOV, giving you an opportunity to prove your claim. By relying on sources that I have proven not to fulfil the requirements it is you who is acting in bad faith. I ask you to find other sources.Addicted4517 (talk)01:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional. I see that you are trying to swing matters your way by getting Fightful listed as a reliable source. That will not make any difference here. As I mentioned above, it made casual mentions of MCW only and did not provide substantive coverage.Addicted4517 (talk)01:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The matters are unrelated, please refrain from following my name around please. I am done arguing with someone that's perspective is so warped. I will not be responding to you furthur. I will wait for AfD.StaticVapormessage me!01:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
