Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoky Mountain Wrestling

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Mountain Wrestling

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. This article consists nearly entirely of original research, the only references provided mention the subject in passing. Coverage I'm finding is largely in blogs. RadioFan (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in an hour or so I was able to put plenty of sources on this article, enough to address the wall of tags the nominator put ont he article basically minutes before putting it up for AFD (I removed them since they were addressed). So with citations the article is not "nearly entirely original research", none of the sources are blogs, some are from industry experts who have published several books etc. MPJ-US 10:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block nominator (or demand apology) for disruptive and pointless nomination. SMW is well known as one of the most prominent independent federations of the late 20th century. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment really, "block nominator"? I'm happy to see someone has identified sources and look forward to your improvements to the article. You were able to find sources that I wasn't in Google news and book searches on the title. These produced pages of blogs with the occasional book mentioning the subject in passing. RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (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.