Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWA Super Sunday


 * 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. Consensus appears to be that the sources provided by LM2000 satisfy GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

AWA Super Sunday

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am sure this event was reasonably important for wrestling, there are plenty of blogs that have blogged about it. However a google search shows no reliable sources. A Gbooks search shows a fair few mentions, but nothing substantial, mainly books talking about Hulk Hogans career. I daresay this event could be mentioned on his page if it is relevant enough. Dysklyver 22:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Dysklyver has withdrawn the nomination per WP:HEY.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Dysklyver  22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep yet another ridiculous nomination by an editor who is rapidly becoming very disruptive. So this is not a substantial mention? "This single match has often been identified as the reason professional wrestling would undergo such an enormous change over the next several years" and "The match that sealed the demise of wrestling in the Twin Cities and the AWA". Enough said. Fram (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And a few paragraphs in a book like this enough for an event to be notable? Dysklyver  12:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When it gets plenty of other mentions for an event that is over 30 years ago? Yes. Note that the match gets written about in many other publications without always using the "Super Sunday" indicator, see e.g. pages 90 to the bottom of 92 for more about this single fight and night in this book. If two books find such an event important enough to spend about a full page of text on it (not just some statistics database), then for me it is clearly a keep. Note that there are plenty of sources which I can't access, like this one which calls it the "climax of a feud" but where the remainder of the text about the event is not visible online. Fram (talk)
 * The first book you cite Hollywood Hulk Hogan, is written by Hulk Hogan so obviously he is going to talk about his own fight, a WP:PRIMARY source. The second source you cite is readable for me, it appears to be a single paragraph on page 28 that contains the sentence: The feud climaxed on April 24 1983 in St Paul, dubbed "Super Sunday" by promoter ... . Dysklyver  08:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A paragraph in a book called "Top 100 pro wrestlers of all time" indicates the importance of this single night, most wrestling matches don't get paragraphs in such books. And I have seen you dismiss sources for being primary before, however this is not relevant for notability in cases like this. If Hulk Hogan (who is undeniably very notable, one of the few wrestlers even non-fans will have heard of) believes this fight was important enough to spend so much time on it (something he doesn't especially benefit from, he could have taken any of his many fights but choose specifically this one), then this is a clear indicator of notability. Now, if all we had was this source, then it would clearly fail the need for independent secondary sources; but since secondary sources exist, then receiving this much attention in a primary source (not profiting from it, e.g. not a press release or announcement) again indicates that this night was an important event in the career of Hogan (and in the existence of the AWA and the other fighters). By the way, it seems to get another paragraph in "The Encyclopedia of Professional Wrestling: 100 Years of History, Headlines & Hitmakers". Fram (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of paragraphs does not make "significant coverage." Does it qualify under significant or in-depth coverage of an event? Hogan's book does not count for determining notability. It can be used in the article once the event is deemed notable, but it does not have any role to play in determining notability. I did a ProQuest newspaper search of Nick-Bockwinkel and Hulk-Hogan and didn't turn up any mentions of the Super Sunday match. At best, it could be a redirect and merge to American Wrestling Association. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 21:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, a couple of paragraphs usually is considered significant coverage. Fram (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The event does not merit an article of its own because of the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:GNG Super Sunday is not close to having significant coverage in reliable sources. One mention in a couple of books doesn't cut it. As the American Wrestling Association article and this mention make clear, Hogan didn't leave for the WWF until December, 8 months after Super Sunday. And he left because Vince McMahon offered him a WWF championship belt, not because Hogan hadn't won the AWA's yet, and certainly not because of what happened at Super Sunday. The quotes Fram provides are unsupported claims that are the dramatic license of the author, they are not evidence of significant coverage. Hogan leaving the AWA and how that helped the WWF nationalize pro wrestling is the significant event in the history of the sport. Super Sunday has a sufficient mention in AWA and thus it is included in Wikipedia. Just not its own article. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 05:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Covered by reliable sources per WP:PW/RS:, and covered in this book:LM2000 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO these are passing mentions. Dysklyver  12:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In what universe is this one or this one a "passing mention"? They may be reliable or unreliable, but calling them "passing mentions" when the article up for deletion is the sole subject of these two links is laughable. Fram (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes (barely) GNG per above. Which is a lot better than some stuff these days. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.