Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Event


 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Big Event

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn wrestling event, was not on PPV or television, many other cards of similar attributes have been deleted. Had prod removed by wrestling fanboi. Biggspowd 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, seems pretty non-notable to me. -- Kicking222 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So, it's a wrestling event, way back in 1986. If it really was a WWF event, certainly it should at least have some newspaper mention? It's unlikely that RS can be found on the web since it dates back over 20 years.--Kylohk 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am the wrestling fan who removed the prod for such fanboy reasons as the event actually being Notable and at the time had one Reliable source as well (I guess assuming good faith isn't necessary when it comes to pro wrestling??). Furthermore I've gone ahead and shown that there are plenty of sources on this event which shows 3-4-5 places that independently report the same results etc. I'd say it's well within the guidelines of what should or should not have an article on Wikipedia - but what do I know, I'm just a fanboi apparently. MPJ-DK 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Set huge attendance records for a wrestling show in Canada, over 60,000+ attended the outdoor event. I think the record is still set to this day (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). FamicomJL 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think so, the WM III record was for the US and there have been higher in Japan and Korea but I haven't found one with higher attendance in Canada
 * Comment Yeah, I had meant the record for Canada. My bad if I wasn't clear enough. FamicomJL 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment no, no, no you were clear, I was just supporting that statement MPJ-DK 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.   —MPJ-DK 07:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has sources now. It is notable for the attendance record and the fact that it was such a huge event back before WWE did monthly pay-per-views. Nikki311 07:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' The article has a whole hell of a lot of sources, I glanced at it when it was up to 35 or something. The other dormant events held by the WWE (Fully Loaded, Insurexxion, etc) still have pages here and i feel this is another one for that pile. --SteelersFan UK06 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I still feel this is far from notable, I will withdraw the nomination. It has gone through the usual pro wrestling "improvement" drive of adding sources from fansites, which are clearly not WP:RS.  And most of the "32 sources" are from the same website.  Total junk, but if you want this place to be a cesspool, that's your fault. Biggspowd 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment so you ARE incapable of "Assuming good faith" then? There is a printed source (a book) in there as well as Slam! Wrestling Canada's biggest wrestling related news site and I've cited websites that are known to be accurate, while they may not hold up to your high and mighty standards they're far from cesspools and have been proven time and again to be accurate, especially when I added external links that confirms the content, if less reliable the fact that several independent sources says the same it definitly makes up for it. MPJ-DK 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Almost none of the sources seem to be reliable by the standards of WP:RS. www.thehistoryofwwe.com is not a reliable source, prowrestlinghistory.com isn't either. We have a mention in a book that might be a reliable source. JoshuaZ 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That’s kinda weird because after having read WP:RS I tend to find that both thehistoryofwwe.com and prowrestlinghistory.com would in no way go so much against WP:RS that it’s grounds for deletion. Let’s examine it
 * From the section "What is a reliable source": Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.  – having used both sites as "fact checks" for events I’ve seen myself over the last 15-20 years and always found them to correctly reflect the facts as I've seen them myself I’d say it’s trustworthy. I’ve used these sites to find dates for litterally thousands of matches I’ve taped off TV since 1989 and not once have they got the result of the match wrong – authoritative indeed. As it states in general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources, there aren’t any wrestling websites that are more reliable out there and they’re definitly appropriate
 * Not only that but it’s not like the facts that these citations support are in any way contentious or surprising facts about something that’s not widely know (in wrestling circles at least). There aren’t any ”exceptional claims” that’d require ”exceptional sources”
 * And seriously you can’t just claim that the book ”might not be a reliable source”, don’t just make an accusation like that back it up with something otherwise you’re just trying to undermine it as a source since it’d speak against deleting the article – and such underhanded tactics naturally can’t be your intention here (we'er all acting in good faith after all) at all so I’m sure you have good reason to try and undermine it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)
 * I'm afraid that you need to reread WP:RS including the sentence you just quoted. The relevant form of fact checking is that that do there own fact checking with having "an established structure for fact-checking" and "editorial oversight". I don't see any evidence that either of these websites has anything of the sort. The book again as I said might be a reliable source, I don't know much about it. One reliable source is less than impressive. JoshuaZ 15:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So because you don't personally know much about it's okay to try and make it look less reliable? What are sources for? To prove that it's not original research, I quotes 3-4-5 different instances that support the claims in the article - ergo it's not original research, it's got enough reliable sources to pass the notability claim and as such shouldn't be deleted. That you have a problem with some of the sources isn't grounds for deletion when it fullfills the requirement of WP:N with the book and the Canoe website reference, the rest honestly is just icing on the cake to disprove any thoughts of "original research", no matter how much you'd like to undermine the book as a reliable source. This is getting ridiculous and honestly not worth arguing over, the vote is cast it's done MPJ-DK 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked into the book in more detail and it seems to pass WP:RS. I've still seen no evidence to back your claims that the two websites are reliable sources. I can't find on either website any evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking which are necessary for something to constitute a reliable source. JoshuaZ 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've known Graham (thehistoryofthewwe.com's webmaster) for many years. The fact that he's had people who are retired wrestlers, and even the WWE THEMSELVES, visit, and the I.P.'s to prove it (Well, atleast when I asked a few years ago,) should prove enough that it's a relaible source. I think he stated legendary manager Jim Cornette once quoted using his site to look in information in an interview This has become SERIOUS nitpicking, gentleman. Just two people's opinions. Why not e-mail the webmaster himself and ask for more information about how notable the site is/isn't, and make a decision from there? FamicomJL 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Why is this AfD still open? It has been the standard five days, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Nikki311 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer. AfDs remain open for at least five days. They have been known to remain open for longer, and it's no big deal if they do. Regardless, I'm closing this one right now, so no worries, eh? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 12 August 2007 (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.