Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016)

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " This article has only a few sources about this very recent event, either announcing it or giving a summary immediately afterwards. This is the same that happens for e.g. all soccer games in the English third division Football League One (which often get more spectators than this event). Now compare the number of news reports you get for one game from last week, Bolton Wanderers vs. Southend United. [1]. An article on this or any similar game would be swiftly deleted. IWRG organises many events (at least 6 in August and a similar number in September) with often the same competitors and the same titles (there was e.g. another "Mascara vs. Mascara" from IWRG in August 2016). No reason to believe at the moment that this event will have the enduring notability required by WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - So for starters since this article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources, let's get that out of the way first of all. The dismissal of coverage of the show by sports or pro wrestling news outlet as "routine" is tantamount to stating that "USA Today has routine coverage of the news" and "Sports Illustrated provides routine coverage of sports". Nominator makes it sound like this is just another weekly show for IWRG - Even though he is aware that the show has been referred to the main event as "The biggest Apuesta match in years", so it was not just "another show". Dismissing this as "no enduring notability"? (crystalball'in?) is a matter of the nominator's ignorance of the subject, so I am not holding that against him. In lucha libre a mask loss is often a significant point in a wrestler's career, good or bad - everything he does afterwards is affected by it, his career is changed. Is the career of "Jimmy Scouser" paying for "the Worthingtonchestershire Pintglass stackers" changed in any significant way if their team loses "a match"? probably not, right? For the guy that has to unmask, big time difference normally - which is why that is not a good comparison. Also this article is not just about the show, it's about the context, the build up, the aftermath (only happened 10 days ago, not a lot of time for "aftermath" yet but I actually have something to add), all of which, by the way, is fully sourced by reliable third party sources. The article is showing a wider perspective than just the show results, it actually covers events going back several months means that it already had "enduring notability" before the match even happened. (sorry to write a book but context matters if people are to make an informed decision on this)  MPJ-DK  20:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not a sport, it's entertainment, but it's entertainment in the form of a sport. But if you want, I can change the comparison to a football game to a comparison to a pop concert. These get announced, and get reviews the day or week after they happened. But they don't get articles here (normally, some very famous concerts of course do have articles) because of NOTNEWS. Now, you are claiming that this will be an event with lasting notability (which is crystalballing), I say that we don't have any evidence for that yet (which is not crystalballing but plain fact). The article has lots of content about events prior to this one, but these don't give any notability to this event. Your claim that "it already had "enduring notability" before the match even happened" is pure nonsense. It is just one in a string of scripted events, witnessed by a few thousand people live and written about in very few sources. Does the match have an impact on the career of the wrestlers. Probably, just like a good match may have an impact on the career of sporters or a good concert may have an impact on the career of musicians (e.g. leading to an invitation to a bigger festival afterwards). Does that make that match or concert notable? In most cases not. For Wikipedia, the only thing that makes an event notable are reliable, independent sources that go beyond the routine coverage that may be expected for such an event. No such sources are available here. Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright now that we've gotten past the fact that lucha libre is NOT actually a competitive sport (as all wrestling fans freely admit) let's examine it and see what is a good comparison. Welcome to the "Lucha Libre Educational ProgramTM, I am your host Professor Emeritus MPJ. So what can we compare Lucha Libre (or pro wrestling in general) to? Well it's entertainment with scripts and in this case yes it is televised (IWRG showed it as part of their weekly show, it was not mentioned in the article yet because they occasionally get pre-empted for live sporting events.) But yes it was broadcast on TV. As for your comparison to "a concert", that to me feels off too - wrestling shows tell stories, over several events which are all different - it's not like they perform the same set list in Seattle and then Cleveland etc. Each performance is significantly different than the last and for the storylines that are being started, continued or ended on these shows - rather more like a TV show than a concert.
  • In my mind Lucha Libre is more akin to TV shows than anything else in entertainment, it is probably the closes approximation I can find if we want to discuss wrestling in the context of other things. So as a comparison, this is what I will go with here. For TV shows we have "list of episodes" and "List of Seasons" type articles. For wrestling we the same sort of summary style articles for a specific recurring show (say the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows) or perhaps List of IWRG shows, that has an overview of all events or "Episodes" (with reliable sources natch). These don't give you a great deal of information on individual "Episodes" but more of a high level summary various information.
  • So in essence this article for Deletion is comparable to an article on a specific episode of a show, one where I felt there was enough sources to support writing a standalone "Episode" article
  • I have seen you dismiss this as a "run-of-the-mill" generic wrestling show - and hey normally I would accept that at face value since you're not familiar with the ins and outs of Lucha Libre - but considering the DYK hook you pulled was cited to a claim that it was the "most significant Lucha de Apuestas match for IWRG in years I have a hard time believing the dismissal as "run-of-the-mill" is entirely based on ignorance of the subject. This show was the culmination of a long running storyline, dating back to the early parts of 2016 (let's say 5 months to not quibble over it) and quoted as "the most significant" in years - I think we probably put this in the "Season Final" type of category (so like Grave Danger) instead of a regular episode during the season (like Fur and Loathing)
  • And allow me to pontificate on the "Lucha de Apuestas" concept. While most professional wrestling considers the championships as "the highest accolade" (Their version of winning an award I suppose) in Mexico the "Apuesta" match - especially mask vs. mask - is considered the "ultimate" and normally is what draws the spectators and the ratings - Hardly "run-of-the-mill"
  • Enduring notability - With events going on over five months, reported on for five months before the show even happened I think that matches the most reasonable definition of "enduring" - perhaps you would like to share the timeframe you have for "enduring" since I'm thinking five months - plus fall out, follow up etc. fits nicely into that timeframe. So not "pure nonsense" since it came about as a results of five months worth of storylines that had been reported on enduringly before the bell even rung for the first match.
  • So, we have the "final" (well, no, just a slightly more hyped "episode") of a season on a minor show. Comparing it to a TV series is giving it too much honour, one could better compare it to some web series with a few thousand subscribers and a few fanzine articles. At most, this would warrant an article for the series, not an article for an individual episode. WP:NOTNEWS applies to all articles, and you still haven't demonstrated anything beyond routine coverage. Fram (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate, you are bolding the "five months" repeatedly as if that proves anything. Please show me any independent indepth coverage for this event going back five months. Or four. or three... You have written an article about an event, one evening with multiple fights, and try to claim that that event is notable because a feud, a storyline going on for months was the main element of the event. Notability of the storyline (if any) doesn't make the event notable. To compare it again with sports; there are many notable "rivalries" in sports, but that doesn't make any individual game in that rivalry notable, not even the slightly more important ones. Fram (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the sports comparison, warms my heart. Since it is on television the dismiss of that comparison seems to be more based on a personal preference than actual facts. And the article is not just about that one show but everything that has led to it. Again clearly in the article amd clearly being ignored because it does not fit your argument. Since you ignore whatever doesn't fit your argument I don't see a point in continuing this circular discussion. Don't get me wrong, I love talking Lucha but not stonewalls.  MPJ-DK  11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is on television? This event? Evidence please. And you are indeed using an article about one event as a WP:COATRACK to discuss something else. If the show hasn't received anything but routine coverage, it isn't notable, no matter how you try to spin it and how many sources not about this event the article has. Fram (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but what do you think? And I'm more of a jacket kinda guy, especially considering the following quote from the article "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." None of that applies to this particular article, it provides context for the show. I guess Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is also a coat rack'in in the sections "Background", "Production", "Script publication" etc. right?  MPJ-DK  00:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just look at the Coatrack article Super Bowl 50.  MPJ-DK  01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because obviously in Super Bowl 50 everything in the "background" section happened before Super Bowl 50 was even announced, just like here. Right? Your comparisons get more and more ludicrous. You still haven't shown replied to "What is on television? This event? Evidence please.". Fram (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event is more comparable to professional wrestling pay-per-views than it is to concerts or weekly football games. I'm well aware one AfD from July is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't believe WWE Clash of Champions is as notable today as this event is and you wouldn't be able to get that, or any upcoming WWE PPV article deleted. Generally, if a WP:RS describes an upcoming event as having "The biggest Apuesta match in years" it will pass the WP:10 year test.LM2000 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, it is said to have claimed the biggest for this organisation (IWGR), not in general. And that this type of event is hyped before they happen is rather standard practice, it seems. Fram (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked that other AfD after all. While I'm not convinced that it should have been kept (perhaps you should have used NOTNEWS as a rationale, making it more obvious that routine coverage isn't enough), it seems that we are comparing a small event (this IWRG m vs m evening), seen by a few thousand people and without any indication if it was even broadcast anywhere (the IWRG article states "Each year IWRG promotes a number of signature events, some shown on television and others only for the people in attendance."), with an event that will be broadcast live on WWE Raw, which is shown on TV worldwide. It's like comparing a first division match with a third division match (even if it is one of the more major third division matches), or a concert by a worldwide star with a concert by a nationally known band. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be well sourced in Spanish. I don't read Spanish, but the coverage appears to be wide and in depth, and with sources that are published under editorial review. I will accept the arguments of MPJ-DK above that this is a major event in the Luche Libre community, and Luche Libre is a notable subject as worthy of inclusion as many other niche topics that Wikipedia covers, such as "Pro-Wrestling" or pretty much any other fictional work. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "well-sourced" routine reviews, no coverage beyond what is required per WP:NOTNEWS though. And it is not a "major event in the Lucha Libre community", it is an event (hypod in one line in one announcement) from the third-rate lucha libre organiser only. The coverage of truly major events in LL is much, much bigger. 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - as per Fieari and LM2000. When listing this article for deletion, Fram failed to disclose that he did so at a time that the article was under extensive discussion at the DYK discussion page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your endless personal attacks get a bit boring, Cwmhiraeth (anyone interested can look at the "Vanity" section at the current WT:DYK page). There was no dispute by any serious person that the page was correctly pulled there. The deletion discussion is for unrelated reasons, as you should be well aware. You (like most others here) have not adressed the actual deletion reason though. How does this not violate NOTNEWS, with only routine coverage (announcement shortly before, and routine review immediately afterwards)? Fram (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.136.234 (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2016 (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/IWRG_Máscara_vs._Máscara_(September_2016)&oldid=1070407830"