Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Madison Eagles (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)

Contested speedy. This article is substatially the same as the article prviously deleted by AfD. Two users claim that the one minor change (the Shimmer championship) changes matters completely and I do not agree at all. Fails WP:ATHLETE and has done nothing notable otherwise meaning it is still a fail of WP:N as it was before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justa Punk (talk • contribs) 00:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G4 as "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". I should note that I'm obviously unable to see the original (deleted) version but given that all the comments in the first deletion debate hold true for the current article I'm reasonably convinced that this article is "sufficiently identical and unimproved". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference would be the "Shimmer Championship" title (was won after the last AfD so it has to be new). I declined the speedy as I thought/think that to be enough to warrant a discussion. I'm not arguing with you, just discussing the difference between the deleted article and the article as it stands now. OlYellerTalktome 04:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn my vote above on the basis of your assertion the article contains new content. I don't know what to make of the sources. On the one hand they're well written and compare Eagles with undeniably notable wrestlers such as Randy Orton. On the other hand at least two of them attempted to open pop-ups on my computer, which doesn't exactly scream out "reliable, reputable website". Possibly need more perspective from people familiar with the pro-wrestling media scene. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm basically stuck on the new title and don't know if it's actually earned or just a title that's essentially given before the match starts. Are they actors or athletes? Outside of Wiki, I'd say both. Inside of Wiki, I have no idea. I'm leaning towards the title not being notable in the first place so I went with weak delete.OlYellerTalktome 05:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any pro wrestling title, barring accidents, the outcome is decided in advance. However, typically in order to be tapped to "win" a title you need to have demonstrated to the promoters that you have the skill, reliability and showmanship needed to headline a card. So there's a merit-based process involved, it's just not direct competitive merit. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's helpful, 411mania is one of the premier websites for pro wrestling reporting and analysis, and I think their articles on the topic should be considered relevant for establishing notability, but I am not terribly certain how reliability of sources would be determined in this type of case. In addition to the articles linked on the talk page, 411mania writers have written extensively on the topic of the Shimmer Championship [1]. Pro Wrestling Illustrated is probably the premier journal covering pro wrestling, but is not available online for free, so I won't be able to check it!
411mania is one of the ones that attempted to open popups and I have to say its layout doesn't exactly inspire confidence in its quality. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is of course pro wrestling that we're talking about ;) Reporting and other coverage isn't going to look much like the Wall Street Journal. --96.231.44.244 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assumed that it's the most reliable source on the planet when it comes to wrestling, the coverage they provide on the subject is minimal (certainly not "significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV). More coverage would be needed for the reference to be used to establish notability. OlYellerTalktome 05:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what goes into winning the championship, it definitely is a matter of talent, in a manner consistent with most non-competitive, entertainment-oriented athletics (e.g., acrobatics). While the winning of the championship is scripted, Pro Wrestlers get that type of honor because of their in-ring physical and story-telling ability, as well as their charisma. --96.231.44.244 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the time of the first afd, I believe the extant secondary source coverage of this subject was insubstantial, and that a deletion based on WP:Bio was appropriate. What has changed was the winning of the Shimmer Championship, which has, I think, received sufficient coverage on pro wrestling reporting and analysis websites to meet the basic criteria of WP:Bio. Nearly all such coverage has declared the winning of this championship to be by far the most important moment of the wrestler's career. I submit the references I added to the article [2] as evidence, which I believe meet the criteria of WP:IRS. Please see Talk:Madison Eagles#Notability Claim for more background. (Also, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of the article's author, and would appreciate a timely CheckUser investigation to demonstrate that this is baseless.) --96.231.44.244 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I'd have to say that, without doubting the skill and athleticism needed to be a professional wrestler, winning pro wrestling events and championships is not based on direct competitive merit and WP:ATHLETE would seem to be a poor guideline to apply. WP:ACTOR sadly isn't much better suited. Probably best to just stick with WP:N for pro wrestling. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, CC, the other two title holders stand up as notable in spite of the title win and not because of it. Del Rey is a mainstay in SHIMMER (Eagles is not), and MsChif has won other US titles including the NWA Women's title (Eagles has won no titles in the US until now). Where else has Eagles worked in the US? That's a major hurdle here. !! Justa Punk !! 10:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and invoking WP:OTHERCRAP is actually a no-no as is WP:OSE. It's an essay only and not policy. !! Justa Punk !! 10:12, 22 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Eagles_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144328374"