Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucha Britannia

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucha Britannia

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is notable. It just needs better referencing. The article does not "depend" on primary sources. It includes them. It is notable as it is one of the first of its kind in the UK. It is unique in genre and has appeared on television and in print media many times. The secondary sources supporting the article are Time Out, Bizarre Magazine, BBC News. I could also add this: <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucha-britannia-mexicos-iconic-wrestling-lands-the-uk-to-entertain-the-crowds-10376345.html>. Can you help me improve it please. Aetheling1125 (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following: Business Insider (2015) [1]. The Independent (2015) [2]. BBC News (2011) [3]. KBS Korean News (2011) [4]. Combined with the mentions in Time Out magazine dating back to 2007. Nikki♥311 21:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced. Not sure why this was relisted as consensus pretty clear. Amisom (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (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.