Talk:Wrestling Superstars Live

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005 October 12. The result of the discussion was keep and merge.

	Wrestling Superstars Live is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Since this wrestling promotion is not related to the AWA other than in name it should be two seperate promotions - if it's not notable then it should be deleted not tagged onto a notable article MPJ-DK 10:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the WWE/AWA lawsuit

Did you guys NOT read the article I had linked to on Gerweck.net? In fact, here's the link to it, just you know will know the TRUTH!:AWA promoter comments on WWE lawsuit.. AWA Promoter Dale Gagne/Gagner CLEARLY states that WWE has NOT won the lawsuit, but that due to a confidential settlement, the AWAStars website has been replaced by the Wrestling Superstars Live! website. Gagne/Gagner also goes on to say that the original AWA is NOT dead. God! I hope someone, probably not me, though, sues Wikipedia for fraud and gets it shut down! Just like the articles for the RAW's Greatest Hits album & Major League Wrestling, Wikipedia is willingly & voluntarily publishing fraud, which is ILLEGAL! In fact, I look forward to the day Wikipedia & the Wikimedia Foundation get sued and, as a result, end up being shut down FOR GOOD. Once again, this article clearly shows the amount of stupidity here. 24.15.89.68 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, gerweck.net is not a reliable source for anything, nor is any so called wrestling "news" site. And anything Gagner says has to be taking with a grain of salt as he is clearly not going to tell the truth. He is all about misrepresenting himself, who is on his shows, and owning the AWA name. Constant lying and false advertising. I suggest you research the facts. WWE owns the AWA name, and the case notes that. There are other counts against Garner, and those results can be added when they are decided. --DanteAgusta (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, you know what, when it ends up being revealed that AWA Superstars of Wrestling won the lawsuit, then all of you who think Vinny & WWE are in the right can KISS MY ASS. Technically, Gerweck.net is just as reliable as this site. To put it this way, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? That, to me, just REEKS of unreliability. As far as I'm concerned, it's NOT me that needs to be researching facts, it's every other MORON here that needs to be doing that. 24.15.89.68 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE won the first count. I doubt Garner, you, will win any of the rest. And if you don't like Wikipedia, then go somewhere else. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put it this way, like the article says, WWE won 1 out of 23 counts/complaints. That doesn't mean they won the lawsuit. Take some lessons in law before you start ASSUMING things. Well, to put it this way, I'll like Wikipedia.....when it's GONE FOR GOOD. 24.15.89.68 (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, can you not read??? I said the first count. Learn to read before you shoot your mouth off. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently you can't read, because it's CLEARLY states that there's more than one count. Hell, Wrestling Radio even has the article on their website:EXCLUSIVE: Dale R. Gagne Talks out on the False Reports Regarding AWA Lawsuit. I'll say it again, learn some law before YOU start shooting YOUR mouth off on something you have NO knowledge about. 24.15.89.68 (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I am talking to a slow person, I am sorry, I did not know you were that way. I clearly said WWE won the first count of the suit. Also, posting a link to another site that is clearly not a reliable source does not help you any. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll paraphrase a sentence from Wikipedia's article on summary judgment, and I quote, "A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through the directions by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried." Hence then, WWE fears that they WILL lose the lawsuit, by them going for a summary judgment. Someone that is confident that they're right, and that they'd win the lawsuit, wouldn't go for the summary judgment. They'd want to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that they're right. So, apparently, YOU are the slow one, not me. Like I said, winning 1 count out of 23 doesn't mean you win the lawsuit. And, if you wanna talk about using reliable sources, then you might as well leave Wikipedia, because people who KNOW what they're talking about (read:anyone who's been successful in life, such as various academic officials & various Hollywood individuals) have actually dismissed Wikipedia as unreliable. I mean, if I remmeber correctly, at one point, Sinbad/David Atkin's bio on here was edited to say that he was dead, when he clearly WASN'T. If that doesn't shout unreliable, then I don't know what does. So OK, DanteAgusta, in the end, maybe you shouldn't listen to me. Maybe, you should be listening more to people who can PROVE, without a shadow of a doubt, that they overall know more than you. 24.15.89.68 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? That's about as unreliable as you can EVER get.

Your just ranting to no point. You have no point! I don't even know what you ranting about. On MLW it was "only Pr Wrestling Illustrated can name a World champion" and now this crap. On MLW you said watch out for a lawsuit... from an extinct company!?! Now you on about Gagner? You have all the earmarking of a troll, so I am ending this nonconstructive rants. Please go somewhere else now, and leave Wikipedia to those with educations. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently, you don't have one. It's an education, not educations. So, as I said, apparently, you're the slow one. And, what I said on the MLW page was that if someone was to revive MLW, then Wikipedia would be in trouble. Maybe you should go back & READ an article before you reference it, dumbshit. I am not a troll, just someone who believes in the truth, unlike you. So, maybe you should be the one that goes somewhere else and leaves Wikipedia to those who KNOW what they're talking about and have an education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.89.226 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that the person who start this section is bitching about fraud when this is Wikipedia. Not everything on Wikipedia is truth because you have people editing articles with a POV not an NPOV. So getting Wikipedia shut down on a fraud claim is laughable. Mr. C.C. (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE dispute

All indications are, as of the date of this post, that AWA Superstars of Wrestling will soon lose the ability to call itself the AWA, and all the titles will have to be renamed, the AWA Superstars of Wrestling claims over the title histories will be erased, the and the AWA Territory system will cease to exist. The various articles covering the supposed AWA titles have been re-edited to note that there is no connection to the original AWA (there never was) and that AWA's claims to the titles may soon by taken away, and as it stands, no title historians recognize AWA Superstar's of Wrestling's claims anyway. By itself, AWA Superstars of Wrestling is not a notable organization, so if (and likely when) WWE wins the lawsuit, this article will likely be deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to say, good move. BUT, we will create new pages for those titles though, correct? There are many "AWA" World Tag Title reigns that have been erased from the Women's(I see the AWA Japan Women's title now, good) and Tag Title Pages. I suppose if the company has to be renamed, we will put the titles' pages back up under the new titles' names? TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to cross that bridge when we get there. In my opinion, the title are non-notable, but that is irrelevant at the moment. The title histories should be kept in limbo as no title historian anywhere recognizes AWA Superstar's claims, and if (and likely when) Gagner loses the suit from WWE, it is questionable that the company will even be able to exist. That is just speculation of course, but even under the best case scenario, if the company survives under a different name, there will need to be a deletion discussion to see if an article is warranted. Then iff it survives AfD, and assuming the new company retains its titles under new names, then we could work on introducing the disputed histories into the new title names, not too dissimilarly to what I have done with the AWA Japan Women's title. As it stands now, no-one is buying Gagner's claims to title names and histories (so leaving the disputed claims in essentially serves to sell a story no-one believes), and based on recent reports, his entire organization is in legal jeopardy, and as such, it would be folly to jump the gun on creating new articles for titles. I believe I have communicated the disputed status of Gagner's claims on the various title articles so people know what the deal is.

I believe the current situation of history in limbo serves the project best, but this obviously does not preclude WP:BOLD creation of new articles (for instance, if one really wanted to, one could create "AWA World Tag Team Championship (AWA Superstars of Wrestling version)," and so on) but keep in mind that it should be effectively communicated that there are significant historical and legal hurdles to even the title's name, let alone continued existence, and keep in mind that any of those newly created title articles may likely end up getting deleted anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for anyone who's curios, here's a link to a news snippet about the lawsuit: LATEST ON THE WWE VS. AWA SUPERSTARS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT. For all anyone knows, AWA could win the case. We don't know for sure that WWE is right in its claim. So, people should make sure to RESEARCH before assuming things. 98.193.77.218 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have they closed shop?

The website is no longer valid Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afd: Nominated for deletion

The website for this organization is no longer active, indicating that the organization is no longer active. Therefore, there is no reason for this article to remain. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Enron is no longer an active company, yet the page remains because it "was" notable to have an article when it existed (or more specifically as it was going down in flames in this case). A valid reason for deletion on this particular article, would have been unambiguous advertising. That being so, it probably should have been tagged for deletion under section G11 of our Criteria for Speedy Deletion Technical 13 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try attempt route instead. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tagged the article how you said & someone removed the tag, saying the article was NOT an advertisement. So, what now? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I re-added the tag, then told the person who removed it that if they disagree, to click on the button rather than removing the tag. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]