Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MXW Pro Wrestling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MXW Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: I recently wrote a completely revised article concerning MXW Pro Wrestling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demanufactured/MXW_Pro_Wrestling_(revised). If this revision satisfies WP:CORP standards regarding sources, I'll go ahead and edit the current article to reflect these changes. Demanufactured (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources can be considered reliable or secondary except the two SLAM! Wrestling sources. However, MXW is only mentioned very trivially within those sources, so none of the sources help establish notability per WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper article in the Albany Times Union wasn't sufficient? Is this particular article being held to a higher standard than the majority of pro wrestling entries? Have you seen the references section of the Jersey All Pro Wrestling article? Fifteen out of sixteen references cite their website. Is that considered an unbiased verifiable secondary source? Demanufactured (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really comment too much on the Albany Times article as it requires a subscription to access. In regards to Jersey All Pro Wrestling, a simple Google search proves that there are reliable secondary sources available, whether or not they are in the article. Nikki♥311 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some of the references I used may be considered tertiary sources, however, is the burden of proof on me as the editor to provide a hard copy of the newspaper? MXW was mentioned twice in the 2006-11-10 edition, but the Times Union only maintains an archive dating back to late 2009 on their website. Current references aside, I want to point out that the primary reason I started this article is because the promotion recently returned from a lengthy hiatus. Their next show is approximately two months away and I'm fairly confident that it will generate a sizable amount of new satisfactory references in the immediate future. MXW is arguably more notable now than it has been for the past three years, during which time the notability of the previous iteration of their article was uncontested. Demanufactured (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to provide a hard copy...if that was the case, quite a few articles would have to have references removed. I meant that I can't tell if the reference is trivial or not because I'm not willing to sign up for the website. However, if it was only mentioned twice, as you state, it probably is. As for it having more coverage in the future, see WP:CRYSTAL. If it does become notable, the article can be recreated, but the creation of articles can't be based on what may or may not happen in the future. Nikki♥311 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I was incorrect about the Times Union database. When I said that MXW was mentioned twice, I should have specified that I meant there were two separate columns regarding it in that day's edition. I recently found direct links (through the Times Union itself, not a news archive site) to the two articles in question and updated the references accordingly. I also added an external link to the MXW entry at The Internet Wrestling Database, which I thought was worth including even though it may not be considered a reliable source. Demanufactured (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: It seems notable enough to me, since a simple Google search brings up results that are considered reliable by professional wrestling fans. It seems Nikki311 is basing what is and isn't credible based on her own interpretation and unwillingness to research (ie: signing up).70.109.185.218 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen several Wikipedia articles that cite newspapers and don't bother using any links whatsoever to verify the claim that they were actually published. I assumed that using a third party news archive site would be enough to prove that the articles in question did in fact run on the date I cited in the references. When that was challenged, I provided links to the full text of both articles through the newspaper's archive site itself. I realize that some of the references I used may be considered trivial, but I would hope that providing a direct link to the full articles would be enough to verify the claim that MXW is notable enough to warrant coverage in a major news source. Demanufactured (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To IP: It may seem notable to you, but how is it notable per Wikipedia policy? What a wrestling fan and what Wikipedia policy considers reliable are two different things. I'm basing what I think is credible per WP:RS. As for the article that requires registration, another copy of it was provided, and I have already talked about that below. Nikki♥311 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen several Wikipedia articles that cite newspapers and don't bother using any links whatsoever to verify the claim that they were actually published. I assumed that using a third party news archive site would be enough to prove that the articles in question did in fact run on the date I cited in the references. When that was challenged, I provided links to the full text of both articles through the newspaper's archive site itself. I realize that some of the references I used may be considered trivial, but I would hope that providing a direct link to the full articles would be enough to verify the claim that MXW is notable enough to warrant coverage in a major news source. Demanufactured (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: It seems notable enough to me, since a simple Google search brings up results that are considered reliable by professional wrestling fans. It seems Nikki311 is basing what is and isn't credible based on her own interpretation and unwillingness to research (ie: signing up).70.109.185.218 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I was incorrect about the Times Union database. When I said that MXW was mentioned twice, I should have specified that I meant there were two separate columns regarding it in that day's edition. I recently found direct links (through the Times Union itself, not a news archive site) to the two articles in question and updated the references accordingly. I also added an external link to the MXW entry at The Internet Wrestling Database, which I thought was worth including even though it may not be considered a reliable source. Demanufactured (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really comment too much on the Albany Times article as it requires a subscription to access. In regards to Jersey All Pro Wrestling, a simple Google search proves that there are reliable secondary sources available, whether or not they are in the article. Nikki♥311 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper article in the Albany Times Union wasn't sufficient? Is this particular article being held to a higher standard than the majority of pro wrestling entries? Have you seen the references section of the Jersey All Pro Wrestling article? Fifteen out of sixteen references cite their website. Is that considered an unbiased verifiable secondary source? Demanufactured (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources can be considered reliable or secondary except the two SLAM! Wrestling sources. However, MXW is only mentioned very trivially within those sources, so none of the sources help establish notability per WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I query the compliance with WP:N here. How is this promotion notable? Joel Gertner owning it isn't enough IMO. GetDumb 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable not only because it's Joel Gertner's current project, but also because it has been referenced numerous times by talent that performed on the shows (both in interviews and on their respective websites), several independent pro wrestling sites (including two major ones that I didn't even attempt to cite due to their "questionable credibility"), and at least one major news source. It's one of the biggest independent wrestling promotions in this area and arguably the most "buzzworthy" promotion in Connecticut. All of that aside, if you consider the fact that Joel Gertner operating it is notable, why would you vote to delete it rather than merge it with his article? Demanufactured (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "KEEP PAGE THE WAY IT IS" I don't really understand why this page is being targeted when there are thousands of pages that link back to some of the company or talent's own web site. This page has detailed information, which is not available anywhere else and should be kept the way that it is. I believe deletion is wrong. SE1009 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)SE1009[reply]
- — SE1009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Barely passes WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How? "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party secondary sources." Which sources satisfy this? Nikki♥311 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles in the Times Union? The MXW sections on Indy Wrestling News and The Internet Wrestling Database? There's also a sizable amount of coverage on the Declaration of Independents website, but I didn't even bother citing any of it because the entire site has been blacklisted for some reason. Demanufactured (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Times Union article reads like a "what is happening this weekend" deal, which doesn't assert notability. The second one, I'll give you because it gives a little more info, but barely because it is along the same lines as the other and it can hardly be considered "significant". Indy Wrestling News, the Internet Wrestling Database, and the Declaration of the Independents are not considered reliable, which is probably why the latter is blacklisted. Nikki♥311 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why DOI would be blacklisted (even though I'm fairly certain it's due to the content of their message board and not the content of the main site itself) but why aren't Indy Wrestling News or the Internet Wrestling Database regarded as credible? What makes them any different from Obsessed With Wrestling / Online World of Wrestling which has been cited countless times in articles regarding independent wrestling? Demanufactured (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Online World of Wrestling/Obsessed with Wrestling aren't reliable sources either. They cannot be uses to assert notability, but it isn't a big deal if they are sourcing non-contentious information like who won a match (although a reliable source is obviously preferable). A source is considered reliable if it is scholarly, not self-published, there is a proven fact-checking system, and/or a proven reliable source gives it a good review (like a positive book review). See WP:RS for more info. Nikki♥311 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why DOI would be blacklisted (even though I'm fairly certain it's due to the content of their message board and not the content of the main site itself) but why aren't Indy Wrestling News or the Internet Wrestling Database regarded as credible? What makes them any different from Obsessed With Wrestling / Online World of Wrestling which has been cited countless times in articles regarding independent wrestling? Demanufactured (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Times Union article reads like a "what is happening this weekend" deal, which doesn't assert notability. The second one, I'll give you because it gives a little more info, but barely because it is along the same lines as the other and it can hardly be considered "significant". Indy Wrestling News, the Internet Wrestling Database, and the Declaration of the Independents are not considered reliable, which is probably why the latter is blacklisted. Nikki♥311 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles in the Times Union? The MXW sections on Indy Wrestling News and The Internet Wrestling Database? There's also a sizable amount of coverage on the Declaration of Independents website, but I didn't even bother citing any of it because the entire site has been blacklisted for some reason. Demanufactured (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How? "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party secondary sources." Which sources satisfy this? Nikki♥311 19:46, 19 March 2010 (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.