Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Bravo Invitational

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Bravo Invitational

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested PROD--not contested with a series of reliable secondary sources, unfortunately. The article is basically an extension of the promotionality of the mother article, Eddie Bravo--the complete lack of secondary sourcing (and the few websites that have reported on it or published results don't make up for that) is a clear sign that this is just not a notable tournament/event by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article essentially consists of results with no indication of why this event is notable. There is a lack of significant independent coverage since almost all of the references are just links to results. Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references to warrant this page. Creator obviously spent lot's of time in making this informative page. It is useful and notable info for the specific industry. Should be kept. Peter303x (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240726201707[reply]

Can you please indicate which of those references show significant coverage from independent reliable sources? I see lots of links to results, but no coverage that shows the article meets WP:GNG. Having lots of references is not a notability criteria if they don't help meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The nominator's comments about the promotional nature of this project should not be missed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2019 (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.