PWA Black Label: It could go back there but this promotion has been deleted from the main space before and has in fact been salted on top of that (see here for the deletion history ).  It should be deleted as there has been no real attempt to get this article past the notability and verifiability guidelines.  Further - the user who moved this article into the main space (Pidzz) was the same user to do it multiple times as above and said user should be warned about that.  Recommend deletion for lack of notability in these circumstances.  Addicted4517 ( talk ) 05:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Wrestling ,  and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  40 sources are Cagematch, which don't show notability.  Other sources are unreliable or primary sources.  No notable promotion -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 07:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : "Other sources are unreliable or primary sources" is false.  I can see reliable independent coverage from Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald, and Timeout magazine.  All established sources.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : notability demonstrated by coverage from Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald, and Timeout (all linked within article already prior to this AfD).  Article nevertheless needs NPOV work.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timeout is a promotional article demonstrated at the end with advertising multiple promotions.  It is therefore not independent of the subject.  The other two do not cover PWA Black Label any more than in a trivial manner, concentrating more on wrestlers in each (Jack Bonza and Robbie Eagles in SMH and Bonza in Triple M).  This does not amount to the required substantial independent coverage required to pass the notability tests.  Addicted4517 ( talk ) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Thoroughly unimpressed by the state of this article.   Notability is not established by coverage, so it fails GNG and should be deleted.   The article would be a few short sentences if we wrote based on what RS have to say about it, the lengthy title histories are clearly not policy compliant.  LM2000 ( talk ) 10:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: An actual examination of the sources reveal that they're trivial coverage, and certainly nowhere near SIGCOV's requirements.  Ravenswing 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – every source in that article is less than impressive, and most are trivial and lack SIGCOV.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete