Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show


 * 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) &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Long article with very, very little information about the actual 5th anniversary show. The only source about this event is routine coverage in a wrestling magazine some weeks later. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nomination is made on a faulty assumption that it was "routine coverage" as in "just mentioned the results in passing", so a few points below.  MPJ  -DK 12:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * THe magazine has a full page article on the show (Significant), from a long-running wrestling magazine with an editor and an editorial process that is not associated with the wrestling promotion (Reliable source, Secondary coverage, Independent of subject)
 * "Some weeks later" - So this was in 1982, that's not a bad lead time from something happening to it being covered in a print magazine. I find that an odd comment, are you trying to discredit the source? In 1982 there were no websites, no instantaneous coverage. Also WP:GNG does not state "must be reported on within a week" anywhere.
 * As for content, I tried to give the perspective of the actual event, not just a narrow "this happened from 10 to 12 PM" and as the GNG states (in a section header no less) "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" so that's not a reason to AFD it.
 * No, it's routine coverage because it is only a few weeks later. It's like a full page report about a soccer match with 50,000 spectators appearing the day after in (multiple) newspapers; while verifiable, reliable and independent, it still isn't sufficient to establish notability. Instead of coverage in a newspaper the day after, this got coverage in a magazine the month after, and that's it. See the nutshell at the top of WP:N: "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (my emphasis). WP:SUSTAINED explains this a bit more. That's for your first three points: as for your last one: what I say is that all the other things in the article, not about the actual event, obviously can't demonstrate any notability of the event (the actual subject of the article), and that while providing background is good, there is a problem when the background is by far the majority part of the article (both in text and in number of sources). Fram (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You want to go quite-for-quote? WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"
 * Content is not notability, reliable sources provided for the actual event demonstrates the notability. That is not a legitimate reason to AFD it.  MPJ  -DK 12:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also by your definition The Wall Street Journal normally provides "routine coverage" of the news then?  MPJ  -DK 12:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about my definition, it's about our general guidelines. Yes, only looking at WP:GNG may give you the false impression that that is all that is needed, but, as explained in e.g. Notability (events), GNG has to be taken together with other things like WP:NOTNEWS to determine whether an event (like here) is notable enough or not to get a Wikipedia article. So, indeed, not everyting that gets an article in the WSJ or the NYTimes will automatically be notable enough for an article here, as they often cover a specific instance of a broader issue. A review of a concert doesn't make that concert notable, but the tour and artist get additional notability through that concert review. A report of game 4 of the NBA finals is indicative of the notability of the NBA finals, but not enough to give Game 4 a separate article. 13:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've said my piece, stated my side - not interested in getting any more repetitive than I already have since our positions are not goint to change, I will just wait for others to chime in.  MPJ  -DK 13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Added in more event details from the magazine source as well as the near riot that happened after the main event was recapped in a 2012 article on Arena Naucalpan.  MPJ  -DK 21:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good coverage, with reliable sources, of the event and aftermath. Meets GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing meets WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2016 (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.