Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Non admin closure - withdrawing nomination. !! Justa Punk !! 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship (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)

Returning to AfD again after the article was re-created without addressing notability issues. Claim is the article is substantially different. I don't agree, but to save an argument I've nominated this again. Hopefully this time some people will come in and explain how this is notable. !! Justa Punk !! 06:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination due to SPI result. Doesn't change the fact that this title is not notable. Will be seeking other means to have it deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Article has been expanded 200k for notability. I checked with an admin and he told me the previous version contained the first paragraph and then table. Additional paragraphs has been added to the lead for notability. Bejinhan talks 06:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Additional info concentrates on wrestlers and not the title in violation of WP:INHERITED. Vast majority of sources still not independent so still fails WP:N. Find mainstream sources away from NZPWI, mates! Mal Case (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment WP:INHERITED is an argument to avoid in AfD. :p Bejinhan talks 07:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Oops, sorry, wrong statement. I realized it after I went offline. Bejinhan talks 09:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's used as a reason to keep. !! Justa Punk !! 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite funny that you didn't notify Fetchcomms about this since he was the one who removed the CSD tag. Hm? Bejinhan talks 09:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, out of the 4 paragraphs, only the last paragraph focuses on wrestlers. So to say that the additional info focuses on wrestlers, it's an exaggeration. Also, notability doesn't go on whether the majority of sources are independent or not. Primary sources are not a reason for deletion. Below is a list of independent sources:
  • "Tuesday August 8". Kay Gregory (Interviewer). Breakfast. Television New Zealand. TV One. August 8, 2006.
and these even isn't the whole list of independent sources. If there are primary sources, you have to cleanup the article, not delete it. Per the deletion policy, an article for which "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is deletable. This obviously does not apply here. Bejinhan talks 09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, what makes you think I have COI in this? I never do wrestling. :) I've never even watch wrestling before, I think it's distasteful and violent. Wrestling is the last sport I would ever watch. I don't have any cards to lay on the table. I created the article via AFC so I feel responsible for it. That's why I'm here. Forgive me, but I wouldn't be wasting my time here if not for it. So please get your facts straight. Bejinhan talks 12:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Btw, my username is Bejinhan, not Bejimham[reply]
The promotion and wrestler covered by TVNZ and Bay of Plenty Times is mentioned in the article. Not only facts relating to the article has to be sourced, anything mentioned in the article has to be sourced. Are you saying that they are not notable because they cite the promotion and wrestler? It is not about the title, it is about the article. Bejinhan talks 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not about the title then the article fails automatically. It has to be about the title in order this to be discussed properly. Running to sockpuppet investigations to try and run down opposition doesn't help your cause. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see about that one. The sources I cited are reliable whether they are about the title or not. Your ill-founded accusation that I have COI really does not help your cause. Just check my edit history. If I'm interested in wrestling, I would have made edits(outside of the AFC articles I created on wrestling) on wrestling articles. See Fetchcomms reply below. I don't understand why you head over to a deletion discussion without checking your sources. A deletion discussion should only be ignited after effort has been made to cleanup and address the article issues. If the issue is primary sources, it's not for deletion. It's for cleanup. Bejinhan talks 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if it can't be cleaned up, it's for deletion. The argument is (and I agree with it) that even with a clean up, it's not notable. If it's notable, there should be sources from outside the industry completely and they should outnumber those from within. Yes I do agree with Punk's argument because simply he is right. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this. GaryColemanFan and Fetchcomms has already stated what I want to say. Thing is, neither you, nor Justa Punk, nor Mal Case have made any effort to clean up. Ironic, isn't it? You said if it can't be cleanup it's for deletion. Problem is, you haven't even tried cleaning it up. Funny. Bejinhan talks 03:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I can't speak for the others, but that's how I know it can't be cleaned up. See my comment below for why. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to discuss the current version of the article, and the expansion is about the title, not just the wrestlers. The article mentions how the title has been involved with interpromotional events, the history of the title, and how it has been covered by independent sources. As mentioned by Bejinhan, there are plenty of independent reliable sources in the article. Instead of pursuing deletion without even examining the article, as the nom says "Claim is the article is substantially different. I don't agree, but to save an argument I've nominated this again. Hopefully this time some people will come in and explain how this is notable." (You cannot see the deleted revisions, I'm not sure why you are at a place to disagree. The article is substantially different. And instead of looking through it yourself, you just AfD it and hope that it gets deleted again.) Well, then, let's see what constitutes notability: significant coverage in reliable sources. In the article now, there are sources from The New Zealand Herald, Bay of Plenty Times, Fight Times Magazine, Ngati Hine FM, the Wrestling Observer, The Northern Advocate, 20/20, Television New Zealand, including TV One and TV2, Hyundai Code on Māori Television, and Wrestleview. Can someone please explain why that is not enough independent sources? Many are news sources, and I don't think we can really dispute reliability for most of them. I just added three of those just mentioned, so obviously no one has bothered searching for sources. —fetch·comms 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The title and title defenses are discussed throughout the article in independent, reliable sources. That is the very definition of notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The majority of sources aren't independent of wrestling and NZPWI (which makes up that majority) is biased. NZ is a country with only three notable promotions. That's the issue here. There needs to be a whole lot more than just one reference for Wrestleview, TVNZ and the Bay of Plenty Times at least. Besides, this is about the title as has been mentioned, not the wrestlers or the promotion. That's what the sources don't establish. They may do okay for the wrestler and the promotion but that's all. How is the title notable? !! Justa Punk !! 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you actually trying to say that those refs I put up there(and they are only part of the list of notable refs) are not reliable because they do not talk about the title? FYI, there's more "than just one reference for Wrestleview, TVNZ and the Bay of Plenty Times at least". Bejinhan talks 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you saying that simply because there is not a majority of non-NZPWI sources, the title is non-notable? You obviously did not search for sources, as I added three additional non-NZPWI independent reliable sources earlier. There are plenty more refs then just "Wrestleview, TVNZ and the Bay of Plenty Times". Please actually look at the references instead of blindly commenting. My sources discuss more than just the wrestler, but it is important to note that coverage of wrestlers in this title also counts for notability, because without known wrestlers, there's no known title. So I must now ask you—how are one-third of the total sources not independent, as you seem to be claiming? —fetch·comms 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Further comment Here are examples of uncited comments in the article relating to the title;

  • The championship is regularly defended throughout New Zealand, most often in central Auckland
  • It has also been defended at several interpromotional events both in New Zealand and Australia.

And this comment should be deleted because it's unnecessary;

  • The championship is generally contested in professional wrestling matches, in which participants execute scripted endings rather than contend in direct competition.

For the record, that entire paragraph does nothing for the notability of the title. So what if so and so has held it the longest? That's notable for the wrestler, not the title. Ditto the shortest reign.

Here's another leading comment;

  • The promotion has often been represented...

The promotion? What about the title? Yeah I know I snipped the comment, but this article isn't about the promotion. That's the whole point here!

One more thing, the Wrestling Observer reference isn't backed up by the link because what's written is too vague and therefore can not be held as reliable. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So every article with uncited statements should be deleted? Indeed, I must confess that I'm amazed at that. It's the first time I've heard it. It isn't even in the RS and N policy. Bejinhan talks 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take those statements out, and what do you have? No talk about the title at all! Cite them, and I will gladly withdraw the nomination because THAT is the problem. All talk about wrestlers and promotion in the cites and NONE about the title's notability. When are you going to get that? Or are you wilfully ignoring the point just because you're butthurt over the existence of this AfD? Well done, Rick, and a great point about Wrestling Observer by the way. It's not in the WP:PW MOS as a reliable site. It's in the questionable list and it's use is restricted IIRC. !! Justa Punk !! 07:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful about your words, Justa. I don't tolerate such nonsense coming from you. Yeah, I understand you. You're saying that just because there are uncited statements the whole article should be deleted. Marvelous! There are thousands of articles with uncited statements. Why not start an AfD about them? The Malaysia article is hugely unreferenced. I challenge you to start an AfD about it. Whether the reliable sources is about the title or not is a different matter. They are citing info in the article. I'm not butthurt over this. FYI, as I said on the SPI page, I'm on a wikibreak because I've been very stressed out here lately. If I can help it, I won't be looking for problems to handle(much less, with deletionists). The undeniable fact is that there are reliable sources in the article and you can't deny it. Please go and read WP:RS and WP:N. Deleting articles is not a convenient way out of the problem. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you've got to put in hard work into it. That includes making an effort to look for sources without hurrying over to AfD. Bejinhan talks 10:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Btw, I seriously doubt you've read WP:CSD. Articles with recent deletion discussions should not be CSDed. You CSDed the article without initially before starting this AfD because you were having objections.[reply]
I work on articles that I know something about. I know nothing about Malaysia. My best area of knowledge is pro wrestling and that's where I work on Wikipedia. I work nowhere else (unlike those who you have accused me of being a sock of) And the fact is there are NO reliable sources that indicate that the title is notable. That is what you refuse to understand. The article as it has been written is about the wrestlers (who just happen to have held the title) and about the promotion. I know WP:RS and WP:N and I challenged you to cite the two comments I quoted. I've worked very hard, and know a lot more about the business than you obviously. I know this promotion, and I know where it really stands in the proverbial pecking order. No title anywhere in Australasia is notable. None of the titles have any independent third party mainstream coverage. Like I said, some of the wrestlers do and the three NZ promotions do. None of the titles do, and I have known this since I first started editing here. You have to prove that the title is notable, and you have not and I know you can't because the sources required do not exist. I know. I've looked. And just on the CSD it was my view that you had not noticed that it had been recently deleted via an AfD (remember I told you it was an error on your talk page even if I was wrong procedure wise). You corrected me on that, and I firstly restored the speedy and then changed my mind and went to AfD again instead. My view is that you are out to get me, and I will stand up to that level of rudeness as politely but as forcefully as I can. I won't stand for such smears and that's why you annoy me as I said on the SPI. !! Justa Punk !! 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you know about wrestling, because we're debating sources, not knowledge. If you refuse to open your eyes and read the sources, then obviously you will keep saying that the title has not received coverage. Well, it has, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to just read through the sources I have listed above. Your sock- and/or meatpuppetry in relation to this case is not appreciated, either (see below). —fetch·comms 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note - JustaPunk has recently admitted to sharing a computer with MalCase. MalCase's comments on this AfD should therefore be viewed as meatpuppetry (in good faith, perhaps, but still meatpuppetry) and dismissed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:51, 3 August 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/IPW_New_Zealand_Heavyweight_Championship_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136111383"