Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A close call this one, but having looked at the article I'm convinced that (1) there are sufficient independent sources and (2) the event itself is of sufficient notability as it had an attributable effect on the fortunes of one (what appears to be) one of Americas biggest wrestling franchises. There's still a lot of room for improvement, but I'm satisfied that notability is established (more through WP:IAR than WP:N though) Waggers (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Fingerpoke of Doom
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Strong Delete. Okay, I gave it 6 months to improve, but this needs to go. Article is of deceiving importance and does not meet WP:V. Sources provided in the article have little to no relevance to the topic. These sources violate WP:RS as they are opinion columns from a wrestling websites (LordsofPain.net itself being WP:QS per talk on WP:PW). Fourth source is referencing the main event of the rival show (WWE RAW). The Impact portion of the article is littered with statements that violate WP:OR & WP:ASF. Per the original AfD, I dispelled any notion that this single event was the cause of or even assisted in the downfall of WCW with this source. This source demonstrates that WCW's ratings increased for a month after the events took place. Kevin Nash (one of the two participants in the angle and as a side note, does not call this event the Fingerpoke of Doom) also debunks this myth in several shoot interviews (including this one ) by explaining Bill Goldberg's injury & CNN/Time Warner's merger was more at fault than any wrestling angle. And finally, and I think most importantly, Fingerpoke is not a word. Endless Dan 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a non-notable event created by wrestling enthusiasts. Has no reliable sources, only several websites that pretend to be ones. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would bet there is better sources out there. It seems to me you hate wrestling, so your personal view is a conflict of interest here. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would bet you're not assuming good faith. Keep in mind that there are plenty of non-events out there for all kinds of sports - there are entire books on the decades' worth of baseball lore that exists, but very little of it is encyclopedic. Hence, it doesn't belong here, and neither does this. If this had been a major media event, covered and analyzed from several angles, you might have something - but that's not the case. So, until proven otherwise, delete. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing to keep now that sorces have been established. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep G-hits tend to indicate that this term is used. It even pulled up a g-news hit from January 2008, where it was credited as one of several reasons WCW failed. Article is sourced (though not well); nom's source would fail WP:RS due to the URL of the website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I realize the link isn't reliable, but if there is a reliable site that has decade old Neilsen ratings, I'd like to see it. Even then, the numbers would not change.--Endless Dan 12:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Although the event is quite notable amoung a subset of people (wrestling fans) the article itself doesn't seem to really meet the requirements for inclusion as most of the "reliable" sources would be first or second party (the actual tape of the incident and wrestling magazines amoung them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on changes although, not sure "ECW Press" counts as a 3rd party source. The article still desperately needs cleaning up and wikifying though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Please note that ECW Press is not related to the ECW wrestling promotion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This was the second of two turning points in the monday night wars (Montreal Screwjob anyone?) WP:PW articles seem to be coming under fire lately. It's notable as a turning point and the biggest ever exampe of a swerve. Thank you.  Sexy   Sea   Bassist   15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Biggest example of a swerve? C'mon. What can you show me that supports your arguement? Just ask me, and I can list at least 10 swerves "bigger" then this. I'm begging you - just ask me on my talk page. --Endless Dan 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pro wrestling articles being under fire isn't that relevant to this discussion. If you look at just about any subject, you could probably find a bunch that are under fire. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources exist, if people are willing to look for them. I added three print sources, which I believe establish notability. I agree that the article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per GaryColemanFan  -  The Hybrid  -   06:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original article for deletion needs to be reread. Every keep-voter says "sources exist" and not a single source was added until it was renominated for deletion. And all the sources added are by the same authors that were discredited in the first discussion. It has been established (including within this article itself) that the finger poke wasn't even the major ratings-shifting event that occurred on television that night. Clearly, this is the project banding together to keep their propaganda page, and in opposition to Wikipedia standards. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also of all the sources recently added, only one of the sources pertain to this actual incident. The other sources are given for inconsequential events (Goldberg being tasered, the nWo reforming, describing Kevin Nash's overreaction). Those actions are not being disputed. What is being disputed is the notability of this event. --Endless Dan 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A few things to note here: (1) It does not matter if sources were added before or after the AfD was created. The important thing is that they were added. (2) The claim that "all the sources added are by the same authors that were discredited in the first discussion" is incorrect. Although The Death of WCW was mentioned in the first discussion, it was certainly not discredited. The two books by Davies, the book by Fritz, the second book by Reynolds, the Wrestling Digest article, and SLAM! Wrestling were not even discussed in the first AfD. (3) While I have added 7 reliable sources to the article, you seem to believe that one source, which, as a 100megsfree.com self-published hobby site, has been deemed not reliable, can override that. I do not believe your view is supported by Wikipedia policy. (4) All of the sources provided pertain to the incident. They establish the notability of the event because many authors felt it important to include a description of the events on the January 4, 1999 episode of Monday Nitro. If authors did not think it was worth mentioning and devoting space to in 5 books plus a journal and an unquestionably reiable website, I agree that notability would be hard to establish. (5) I have yet to see anybody claim that this was the single event that caused WCW's downfall. The only people who claim that this has been argued are the people pushing for deletion. The article states that it is "a pivotal storyline", but it definitely does not say "the single event that caused the downfall of a multimillion-dollar company". It is simply a well-known event that is documented by many reliable sources. That, according to Wikipedia policy, warrants its inclusion in the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the second RD Reynolds book, all the added sources do is establish the one-finger pin occurred. And even RD Reynolds himself admits in Death of WCW that WCW was already losing the ratings war at this point. Yes, ratings steadily dropped after this. They had also been steadily dropping before this event. A cherry-picked quote does not prove this is a pivotal occurrence. No "unquestionably reliable" website has been cited. The reference index has been padded, yet the notability of this event remains unestablished. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article of an important event in WCW history, thogyh it does need to be cleaned up. -- Plasma Twa  2  22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not nearly as important an event in wrestling history as it is made out to be. Nowhere near the level of the Montreal Screwjob. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Confused comment I have yet to see a Wikipedia policy stating that events much be at or above the level of the Montreal Screwjob for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The question being debated is whether or not the event is notable. According to the criteria at Notability, it seems pretty clear that the answer is yes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't agree that this article meets the notability guidelines. The internet sources are either not reliable (fan opinion pieces) or do not show significance (TV character timelines). The print sources show no depth of coverage. These books are wrestler biographies and collections of crappy storylines, and they are by the same authors. Availability of secondary sources remains assumed, but has never been demonstrated. The results of the first deletion nomination was that this article should be deleted if notability is not established. As it has not, it seems obvious now that it can't. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ref

 * 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.