Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikara Season 11


 * 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. Whether it is a TV series, DVD series, or something else entirely, the consensus (except for sockpuppets) seems to be that it isn't suitable as a standalone article in this format. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Chikara Season 11

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All in-universe summary of a professional wrestling tv pay-per-view/DVD show season. If this is notable in any way, then WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not even a television series. It's a DVD series of events from 2002 to 2013, and four internet pay-per-views from 2011 to 2013. As far as I know, Chikara never made it to TV. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In regards to TV, CHIKARA used to have a TV show that aired in Italy. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a detailed summary of everything that occurred during CHIKARA's Season 11. CHIKARA is an valid entry is this Wikipedia, and I've linked to it. Also, please advise how this irreparable? It has appropriate links and factual information that can be proven through those links. If you are going to make claims such as this, I feel that you should give more specific information as to what is wrong with the entry. In addition, while you may not be a wrestling fan, that does not make this article "useless". This history will an invaluable source for those researching CHIKARA and it's history, especially now that the company has recently returned. Also, if this is just all in-universe TV Season recap, then why haven't the Season recaps for The Simpsons and other TV shows been marked for deletion as well?--BabsChikara (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:INUNIVERSE: "in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become." Detailed summaries of fictional/theatrical events are not appropriate, and certainly not in an un-encyclopedic tone. Instead, if you want a separate article about this topic, you should adhere to WP:42, and establish its notability using reliable, third-party sources; then, a short summary may be in order.
 * The rest of your argument boils down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is considered an invalid argument in AfD discussions. (To be sure, quite a few articles of this kind have been deleted before.) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, if you claim that this is fiction and should be deleted on those grounds, then you should also label summaries of The Simpsons or other similar TV shows seasons for deletion as they are fictional. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a true rebuttal to my argument. Also, my claim to keeping the article on the site is not centered around that claim. The events in the Season Summary actually happened to these characters and the links prove it. While the seasons may tell a story, they are based on real, live events. I linked directly to the results page and to the actual event itself, where it can be viewed. CHIKARA is very detailed and this is a brief summary. Just because you may not be a wrestling or CHIKARA fan and therefore would have little use personally for article, that does not mean others wouldn't find it useful or that it does not not add to the CHIKARA entry in this Wikipedia, which makes it an valid and valuable entry. --BabsChikara (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stay on-topic. The non-deletion of other articles is only a valid argument when those articles have actually undergone AfD discussions, in which case they count as precedents.
 * As for the sources, there is exactly one non-affiliated source, which is simply not enough per WP:GNG. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, there are multiple independent sources here. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources used have been established as valid and reliable, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Said sources have also been used and referenced on the other articles that summarize CHIKARA seasons, which, not counting this one, currently number seven in all and have not been objected to in this way. In fact, if you look at the original editor's talk page, they have received proper guidance in the establishment of valid and reliable sources from another editor versed in the subject regarding one of their other articles, and had satisfactorily corrected their use of inappropriate sources. If this is regarding the length of the article, I do believe that it could be pared down given time, but I would hate to lose the information contained within, as others would certainly find it useful and it would be a great resource for people trying to become acquainted with the subject material. RaveBlack (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is exactly one third-party source here, pwponderings.com. The rest are simply the DVDs of this season. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional third-party sources can and certainly will be added. They do exist. The article should have been marked as needing such and not marked for deletion. --BabsChikara (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to contain any encyclopedic content whatsoever. The argument that we have articles on Simpsons seasons is completely bogus. Take a look at something like this, The Simpsons (season 5), it bears no resemblance to the article in question. -- Daniel (talk)  17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, issues with style should be noted as such and not immediate calls for deletion. In addition, I was replying to the original argument that the article should be removed because it is fictional and I used the Simpson's seasons as an example for my rebuttal.--BabsChikara (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the style, it's the content. The key here is that the Simpsons article covers real world non fictional topics, while this does not. There doesn't appear to be anything salvageable here.  It's all written as a fan summary rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Daniel  (talk)  17:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please Note: The page has been edited and the third party sources added. Thank you. --BabsChikara (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in process of editing it and adding the third party sources. The Simpson does do that and I do feel that it belongs here no doubt, but that wasn't the original argument. CHIKARA also covers real world, non-fictional topics as well, along with linking it to other aspects of culture. It also belongs here. I have no issues with the criticism for style and sources. Those can and are being corrected; however, the article should have been marked as such and not for deletion.--BabsChikara (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Television-related discussions? Nope, more like DVD-related discussions. Since when has Chikara been on TV? From 2002, it has been you watch live or buy the DVD. From 2011 to 2013, there were four internet pay-per-views released. Since when has CHIKARA made it to TV? starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted all the smartmarkvideo DVD references. They only show that "the DVD exists" and what matches occurred. There's no match reports which means we don't even know what happened in the match or even who won the match. There's no point to those sources. starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a series of live events and it is available for live streaming through Neon Alley, which is an online anime streaming service that is not run by the company. Being on TV is not necessarily a requirement for notability or measure of importance. --BabsChikara (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that I had erroneously assumed this was a TV series. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, being on "free" TV is a measure of importance, because it reaches a far wider audience than having to purchase each DVD and internet pay-per-view. This week's TV episode of WWE Raw is an example. It was watched live by 4.849 million viewers in the United States alone. WWE's pay-per-views like Survivor Series (2013) receive only 179,000 buys. WWE's most popular PPV, WrestleMania 29, did not even receive 1.1 million buys. Things that reach a wider audience are more important and notable, because in turn they will receive more coverage.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, it's the actual number of viewers as established by an independent source that establishes notability, not the medium itself. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... Under the Hood, Chikara's third ever iPPV held in December 2012, was watched live by 525 fans. Meanwhile it drew 1025 iPPV buys. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Might I say I'm discussing with BabsChikara as to how to improve her edits in Wikipedia. It remains to be seen if this article can be saved. The article currently does have WP:PW endorsed reliable sources for event reports - Pro Wrestling Torch and PWInsider. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamed (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft. I actually really like Chikara, but these articles (this and the other season articles, which should also be nominated) just aren't going to work on Wikipedia. EVEN if they were completely rewritten, Chikara events, outside of their iPPVs, are just not notable. They get virtually no coverage from any major wrestling sites considered reliable by the WikiProject, which is why you have to go to bottom of the barrel sites like Cagesideseats and PWPonderings for results. And if a site like PWTorch posts results, they usually just post the results of the matches and don't touch the stoylines, which is basically what these articles are all about.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, and CBS Local are considered reliable sources. They are present in the article. Folgertat (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-trivial Newspaper sources such as the Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, the Chicago Sun Times, and others and news sources such as CBS Local that were added since the beginning of this afd make this article worthy of a clear keep. All of these sources meet the requirements for reputable sources. A subject does not get covered in the Chicago Sun-Times, CBS, and many other sources if it has not established notability in the mainstream world. The argument that was presented by Ribbon Salminen disregards the fact that there are almost 10 mainstream newspaper sources that covered this subject. The quality of the writing in the article can be changed and is therefore not a valid argument for deletion or keep, as is the basis of the argument that was presented by Daniel before these newspaper sources were added. The presence or lack of presence of verifiable sources can not be changed and is a valid argument for deletion or keep. The sources either are there or are not there, and in this case, many mainstream sources are there. There are almost 10 newspaper sources with non-trivial coverage, which is more than enough to satisfy the notability requirements. It is worth noting that some of these sources even pertain to some of the less significant events of the season, such as The Reading Eagle covering Benefit for Baseballtown Charities. That event was not as significant as, for instance, King of Trios, and it is one thing for the more significant events of the season, such as King of Trios, to receive newspaper coverage. When even the less significant events obtain newspaper coverage, you know that the subject meets notability requirements. The administrator who handles this discussion should also keep in mind that the first delete vote came before the newspaper sources were added and the notability of this subject was clearly established. Folgertat (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this user is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry per the findings of Sockpuppet investigations/Folgertat LM2000 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The coverage from the Village Voice and CBS Local are just announcements, not the kind of significant coverage that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT require. They can't even be used as sources for the occurrence of an event, since they were published prior to it. The Reading Eagle and Chicago Sun-Times articles look more like proper coverage. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Chikara absolutely is notable as is the King of Trios tournament and their iPPVs. They get coverage from all major sites in the business. But these articles about Chikara seasons are not. I would argue against season articles of Ring of Honor Wrestling and that's a national television program. Chikara is not. It's a series of live events held in school gyms.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I basically rewrote most of the article to improve the article's writing and I added new sources to Portland, Maine's Press Herald, Portland, Maine's The Phoenix, the Philadelphia Mausoleum of Contemporary Art, two Geekadelphia articles, and two Philebrity articles. There should now be plenty of sources.

The main objection to this article and reason for deletion was that is was not note-worthy and it has been proven through the required third-party citations that it is. In addition, it adds additional context and content to an already existing entry, furthering an understanding of the subject matter already deemed worthy of the Wikipedia. The editors of this article have, at every suggestion, met the criteria and suggestions set forth here and on talk pages to show the worthiness of this subject. I am asking that the deletion tag be removed and the article be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.--BabsChikara (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little premature to close this AfD yet. The article still needs some work. All links, for example to Geekadelphia and Strathroy Age Dispatch, should be converted to references. All references should clearly state the publisher. This will help, not hurt, the article's chances of surviving. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 03:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate that it needs work and your suggestions will be included in an upcoming edit. However, I think it's been proven that this entry is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia through the use of valid third party sources and the deletion tag should be removed and replaced with the appropriate editing tags.--BabsChikara (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the references are in this article and that they document that this topic is important enough to have an article about it is what is important. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think the sources only go to show that Chikara as a promotion is notable. But again, this is not about deleting the main Chikara (professional wrestling) article. I think the Chikara superfans taking part in this discussion have a difficulty making this distinction. This article is the definition of WP:FANCRUFT and just an indiscriminate collection of information, something Wikipedia specifically claims it is not. Taking only the important parts of ALL seasons and putting them together into a bit at Chikara (professional wrestling) is something that should be considered.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, please assume good faith and do not assume that "Chikara superfans" are not making a distinction accurately, as nobody has addressed you as a "Chikara anti-fan." Secondly, the assertion that people are misinterpreting this deletion proposal as relating to the deletion of the main CHIKARA article is not accurate, and the distinction is indeed being properly made. Even though BabsChikara accurately responded to your point, that point can also be responded to by the fact that the sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events. For instance, the Press Herald news publication specifically mentions Green Ant as a focal point of CHIKARA, and that is why that news publication is used only as a reference for that. As a second example, the Strathroy Age Dispatch specifically speaks of the Young Lions Cup, and therefore it is only used as a reference for that. These references provide evidence for the importance of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to just its general importance, which has already been established. Thirdly, WP:FANCRUFT states that "articles labeled as fancruft" tend to be "unreferenced," and that is clearly not the case with this article. The assertion that this article "is the definition of" or even qualifies as fancruft is not accurate, and even if it is fancruft, which it is not, Wikipedia states that "If you come across fancruft, a kind approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." As BabsChikara has stated, this article has been improved and it meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion for an article. Fourthly, this article simply is not a indiscriminate collection or list of information and it does not resemble the examples that WP:DISCRIMINATE presents. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My argument is not about the notablity of CHIKARA, but rather Season 11. The sources provided discuss the actual events of the Season, not just CHIKARA in general. If Season 11's events weren't notable, then would not receive any type of media reception at all. The media sources are all third party as required by Wikipedia. I feel that the subject does fulfill requirements as noted here. The information contained is not indiscriminate, but rather chosen because it references events that have an impact on other Seasons and events. The decision to divide them into individual Seasons was to allow for shorter entries that would be easier to follow and use for Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is meant to be comprehensive as per the noted page and this information enhances Wikipedia's readers' knowledge of this subject. It adds to readers understanding of the subject. New arguments for this entry's deletion are not being made at this point and the sources and edits more than sufficiently addressed all the current arguments for deletion. Honestly, I would say this if we were discussing a similar article about another wrestling company. --BabsChikara (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic was written about in many news publications that are located in not one, but at least eight, different markets (Philadelphia, PA, Lehigh Valley, PA, Berks County, PA, Portland, ME, Strathroy, Ontario, Canada, New York, Chicago, IL, and Lafayette, IN). Most wrestling federations are not even written about in news publications in their home region, and one criterion that Wikipedia uses to establish that a topic deserves an article is that the topic has received regional press. As WP:CORP states, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." This topic has received more than regional press, in that the news publications in this article are based in at least eight separate markets, including two countries (Canada and the United States). The news publications in this article are considered by Wikipedia to be "independent sources" and "reputable media sources" that are "independent of the topic," and they are writing about the topic "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter," as WP:N states. These news publications have "no vested interest in" this topic, as WP:IS states. These facts show that this topic deserves to have an article about it. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: is a confirmed sockpuppet of  and has been indefinitely blocked.


 * Delete I agree with Ribbon that the reliable sources cover notability towards CHIKARA, not necessarily Season 11 in particular. That isn't to say that some of this stuff isn't noteworthy, but the more noteworthy material should be merged to the Chikara (professional wrestling) article.  What we have here is an indiscriminate collection of stuff that this company did in one year.  That sounds crufty to me.LM2000 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Your first argument is that these sources only reference the general notability of CHIKARA. This argument has already been addressed and has already been debunked by both the editor who made this article and by myself. The sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events. For instance, the Press Herald news publication specifically mentions Green Ant as a focal point of CHIKARA, and that is why that news publication is used only as a reference for that. As a second example, the Strathroy Age Dispatch specifically speaks of the Young Lions Cup, and therefore it is only used as a reference for that. These references provide evidence for the importance of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to just its general importance, which has already been established. Additionally, most or all of these sources don't even make reference to past seasons that were before season 11. They specifically make reference to season 11.

Your second argument is that the article is an indiscriminate list of information, as explained at WP:DISCRIMINATE. This argument has also already been addressed and been debunked. This article simply is not a indiscriminate collection or list of information and it does not resemble the examples that WP:DISCRIMINATE presents. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events" Again, that's sort of the problem. This article is simply a list of results in an in-universe perspective, which fails guidelines. Notability for the "season" clearly hasn't been established because only PWTorch calls it a "season".  Beyond that, one news outlet covering one event that happened sometime in one year doesn't grant sufficient coverage for one year of a wrestling company to get an article.  Using The Press Herald article as an example of significant coverage is baffling and an example of sad puffery from you folks.  The Green Ant mention is nothing more than a caption!  The article is to hype the "Great Escape" event, but goes further and details the Chikara company as a whole.  This article could be used to argue notability for Chikara, and the "Great Escape", but just because it happened in the year in question doesn't mean it goes towards that notability.LM2000 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, please assume good faith and watch your tone. Do not accuse anyone of "sad puffery." Secondly, as already stated, the title of the article doesn't matter. What matters is the subject of the article, which is the history of CHIKARA in 2012, and the importance of that topic has been more than established. The person that created this article already addressed your point that the news publications don't show that the topic deserves an article by saying that they wouldn't have talked about the topic if the year wasn't important enough to have an article. She wrote, "If Season 11's events weren't notable, then would not receive any type of media reception at all." It doesn't matter if it is a caption because it is a part of the article. The fact is that it specifically mentions that particular wrestler. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Familiarize yourself with WP:SYN. None of the sources specifically focus on this topic in depth.  Not one.  They cover individual events, or they cover the company in general.  Throwing a bunch of sources into a pile and stretching them to fit your agenda is against policy.  Furthermore, tossing an endless list of sources into an article, whether they fit there or not, especially when trying to save the article from deletion is the very definition of puffery.  If you and the rest of the suspected socks continue to respond to us, then please indent your responses correctly.  It's making this discussion very difficult to read.LM2000 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment That is not accurate. The results were mostly removed. The point that the article only establishes notability for CHIKARA in general has already been addressed. As starship.paint stated, addressing why the sources do not refer to "Season 11" would assist in establishing notability for the season itself, and that has been done. That notability has been established already. It passes numerous guidelines. It establishes notability for the season. Your argument should be rooted in Wikipedia policies rather than in opinion. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge: It has two reliable sources, the company and PWTorch. It uses Youtube which idk who published the videos. PWinsider has always been considered a dirtsheet over the years through various discussions by now retired editors. Any information can be merged with the main articles and bios. Not notable for this company. To explain further though, this series is not notable enough for its own article. The company is notable on its own, but a season of events is just plain listcruft pretty much.-- Will C  12:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment You are very mistaken. Please review this article before commenting and please also root your argument in Wikipedia policy rather than in opinion. This article has more than 10 reliable sources, including news publications, which is 10 more news publications than most pro wrestling articles cite. Those articles that cite no news publications have established that they deserve an article and this article has cited more than 10 news publications and it has also established that it more than deserves an article. As has been stated and has not yet been addressed, this topic was written about in many news publications that are located in not one, but at least eight, different markets (Philadelphia, PA, Lehigh Valley, PA, Berks County, PA, Portland, ME, Strathroy, Ontario, Canada, New York, Chicago, IL, and Lafayette, IN). Most wrestling federations are not even written about in news publications in their home region, and one criterion that Wikipedia uses to establish that a topic deserves an article is that the topic has received regional press. As WP:CORP states, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." This topic has received more than regional press, in that the news publications in this article are based in at least eight separate markets, including two countries (Canada and the United States). The news publications in this article are considered by Wikipedia to be "independent sources" and "reputable media sources" that are "independent of the topic," and they are writing about the topic "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter," as WP:N states. These news publications have "no vested interest in" this topic, as WP:IS states. These facts show that this topic deserves to have an article about it. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please advise exactly how this is listcruft? It's not a list. --BabsChikara (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a list to be listcruft. It is a list of results that is pretty much it, in a in universe perspective. It fails numerous guidelines as is and does not establish notability for this series. It establishes notability for the company, not the season.-- Will C  03:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - it just occurred to me... notability for the company, not the season... if this is not a television show, then why would it have seasons? Anyway, there are apparently so many reliable sources in the article right? How many mention the term "Chikara Season 11"? Or just "Season 11"? Would the editors who have added the sources reply on this, as you are more familiar with them. This will help to establish notability for the season itself.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if the title of this article should have something to do with the history of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to Season 11, the fact is that the importance of this topic has been established. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep  This article has more than enough reliable references that are independent of CHIKARA Season 11 and that discuss it in a significant manner. and it has verifiable material. That is what it needs in order to warrant its own article and it has them.Whitescorp34 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: is a confirmed sockpuppet of  and has been indefinitely blocked.


 * Comment A number of editors who voted keep in this AfD are involved in a sockpuppet investigation.LM2000 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * facepalm... sigh... starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I generally don't get involved in these types of discussions at all. RaveBlack (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, you have never gotten involved in a discussion before this.LM2000 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'd have known that there would be some kind of witch hunt involved, I would've stayed away from this one too. I believed the article had merit, therefore I commented. I have given my reasons why I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor elsewhere. RaveBlack (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a witch hunt. I haven't voted yet, and I find it suspicious. Let's wait for the results. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And the results are in. Fortunately RaveBlack was innocent all along. The others were indeed sockpuppets though.LM2000 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, imo the entire article needs Blowing up and redoing, I'm also clueless as to why User:MrScorch6200 has relisted a debate in which consensus is to delete? .... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question I'm sorry, I'm still extremely new. I've read the Blow it up and start over page and it's not exactly clear. Could you explain to me why and how it applies to this entry? Thanks!--BabsChikara (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At first glance the votes look even. Most of the keep votes are still extant because the sockpuppet case involving those voters is still ongoing.  I'm sure this is why MrScorch6200 relisted.LM2000 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the article is relatively new, and BabsChikara might have needed some tips on editing TV articles, this and the others listed here should be merged into a more succinct List article. —  Wylie pedia  16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse Wyliepedia's opinion. I'd prefer for all the seasons to be merged into perhaps a "History of Chikara" article, with the subsections being each year. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge - yes, there are sources out there, which are included in the article. But even so, does Chikara need to have an individual article on each season (each yerar?) It is really debatable whether the availability of sources point towards the notability of Chikara itself or does it point notability to Chikara Season 11? If it's the latter, then how many of those non-primary sources even mention "Chikara Season 11"? I believe this article and the rest of the season articles (Chikara Season One etc) should be blown up. Then, we can start over by having a new article called "History of Chikara", which would be a condensed version of all the season articles. The new article can exist due to the notability of Chikara itself. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:12, 23 February 2014 (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.