Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veda Scott (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   delete. A major argument presented for delete was WP:ROUTINE. I don't entirely buy into that being a relevant guideline here. WP:ROUTINE is part of Notability (events) and a person is clearly not an event. It would apply to an article about one of Scott's matches, but not to an article about Scott herself. However, other arguments were raised, particulary the similar WP:SIGCOV, which is relevant. Even discounting those relying entirely on the ROUTINE argument, on balance the debate is still pointing to delete. I believe a single article addressing Scott directly, rather than a match, would swing this situation and it is entirely credible that the article could be rescued. On that basis I would be pleased to userfy the article on request. SpinningSpark 03:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Veda Scott
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted via AFD earlier this month. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". This article is a re-creation of an article deleted in AfD on July 1, 2014.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Person who contested G4 speedy tag claims that recreated article is better sourced than original. A review of the footnoted sources shows a collection of wrestling industry websites that do not appear to be independent of the subject per WP:RS.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very sure the sources are independent. Not so sure that they are reliable though. starship  .paint   ~ regal  15:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - stop the presses! "Veda Scott" turns up 338 results for reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling. She's not as un-notable as she seems. The article is simply in poor shape and does not reflect that. One of her selling point is that she's had around 18 matches for SHIMMER, which is not currently reflected in the article, including one tag team title shot where she won via DQ (therefore didn't win the title). She's also wrestled internationally in Japan before. She's also prominent for ROH (national TV) somehow in a non-wrestling role which I have yet to determine. starship  .paint   ~ regal  16:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After adding numerous sources to the article, she obviously satisfies WP:GNG. starship  .paint   ~ regal  02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - As I am sure you know, Google hits are meaningless for purposes of determining notability per WP:ENT and WP:GNG.  Have you reviewed these sources in any depth?  I've just waded through several dozen, and I am not impressed.  Most, if not all, of these sources appear to be fansites, blogs or industry promotional sites, and the "Veda Scott" mentions seem to be WP:ROUTINE coverage or trivial one-sentence mentions.  Lots of video clips, too.  Can you pull five or six sources out of the 300+ which are (a) reliable sources per WP:RS, (b) independent sources, i.e., not industry promotions, and (c) include significant, non-trivial coverage of Veda Scott individually?  Oh, and don't forget: multiple stories/articles from the same website, newspaper or other publication count as a single source, and we need multiple sources to establish notability.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Starship weeded out unreliable sources and specifically searched for sites which the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject have deemed reliable. That said, most are passing mentions.  Those which include her in the headline are videos  or this.  She's definitely covered more than she was when the first AfD happened but I'm not sure if she passes the WP:GNG yet.LM2000 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer1, the five websites I narrowed the search terms for are confirmed by WikiProject Professional wrestling to be reliable sources in our style guide. None of them are fan-sites or blogs. I'm not sure what you're getting at saying that they are "industry promotional". Yes, the five websites are industry-related, but that doesn't stop them from being reliable secondary sources, None of them are affiliated with the companies that Scott has worked for. There are other industry-related websites used as reliable sources. WP:Football uses worldsoccer.com. WP:Film uses Filmmaker Magazine. I hope to be able to address the rest of your concerns later. starship  .paint   ~ regal  03:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delving into the sources...
 * Canoe.ca's SLAM! Wrestling - within Ring of Honor, she was noted to have had a talking segment on ROH's first live pay-per-view, regarding her alliance with RD Evans. This alliance also previously led to Scott appearing / talking on an Internet pay-per-view for ROH. She was also noted to have wrestled in Canada. Her match at SHINE 1 was also highlighted by a fellow wrestler.
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter - Scott is obviously in a notable segment in this ROH TV episode, as well as this other ROH TV episode. There is more.
 * Pro Wrestling Torch - Scott is featured on ROH TV in a storyline with the Romantic Touch. There is also detailed coverage of one of her matches in Women Superstars Uncensored. There is more.
 * PWInsider - surprise, I found out that Scott has wrestled for the #2 US company, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling on pay-per-view. That's pretty significant. However, the pay-per-view was taped and has not aired yet. Anyway, here's detailed coverage of a match Scott wrestled at a Shimmer Internet PPV. There is more.
 * Wrestleview - Ring of Honor match against MsChif has detailed coverage. There is more.
 * So, what say you, and ?  starship  .paint   ~ regal  07:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In the last AfD I said "Deleteshe's a less notable person on a less notable franchise. Only on lesser channels in about half of US states http://www.rohwrestling.com/tv/listings". Has anything changed?  I don't know much about twitter but 424 followers seems pretty low to me - https://twitter.com/itsvedatime .  A link to a facebook account that doesnt connect doesnt help.  Gregkaye (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , the fact that she's on national television is a positive point IMO. Even half of the US is significant. Also, she has 12,500 followers on Twitter. 424 is who she is following. starship  .paint   ~ regal  05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What national TV channel is she on and to what extent is she on it?
 * Thank-you, I've learned something about twitter. I looked up http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-50-wrestlers-of-all-time?page=5 and came to the first name on the top ten and then went to https://twitter.com/TripleH .  Hunter Hearst Helmsley) (as I learn his name to be) has 1,740,000 followers.  https://twitter.com/WWE has 4,500,000 followers.  I went to the Vega Scott page and followed the internal links labled  Horizon Wrestling Alliance and Absolute Intense Wrestling in a bid to find an equivalent to the WWE.  Both links led to List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States but neither title was found.  I know that I've been asking about popularity and that actual notability is something different. Gregkaye (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time so I'll answer your query about Twitter for now. You have to understand that since 2001, WWE has had a monopoly over the professional wrestling industry not just in the USA where it is based in, but also internationally. They are so far ahead of everyone else. JTG was a wrestler who won only one match from 2012-2014, and he didn't appear very frequently on television. He has over 300k followers. The #2 company in the USA, which is TNA, let's look at the three most recent TNA World Heavyweight Champions. They have 110k and 157k and 80k. It's unfair to compare WWE to everyone else, and we shouldn't have only WWE articles on site. starship  .paint   ~ regal  13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , as I said above, you'll find no equivalent to the WWE in the whole world. The Mexican and Japanese wrestling companies are pretty much restricted to a national product. You're right, AIW and HWA are pretty much insignificant. But you're looking at the wrong companies. You should be focusing on Ring of Honor and Shimmer Women Athletes. ROH is the #3 company in the USA, with a national TV product. SHIMMER (from a 2013 article) is the top all-female wrestling company in the US. Apart from that she's wrestled in Japan and Canada. starship  .paint   ~ regal  06:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the claim above "SHIMMER (from a 2013 article) is the top all-female wrestling company in the US" the only thing that I can say is that the word top is very subjective. Looking at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKkqg_tibs it seems that NXT Women's Championship events have vastly higher attendance (but this may be due to being on the same bill as other events).  Incidently I added the { {Professional wrestling in the United States} } template to the bottom of the NTX page.  It would be nice if people in this industry could use honest and fair representation in ALL their links. Gregkaye (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I said "all-female". Men don't wrestle in Shimmer, but men do wrestle in NXT. I dare say that for mixed gender promotions, the women are definitely not the highlight. Exact quote is Dave Prazak's SHIMMER promotion, which has been the top women's wrestling group since its inception a few years ago. starship  .paint   ~ regal  13:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Scott has become more notable. She appeared in two major promotions; Ring of Honor and TNA (One Night Only Knockouts Knockdown Pay-per-view) and she has competed in major female promotions such as SHINE Wrestling and Shimmer Women Athletes. She has won the Rookie of the Year as well has being ranked #43 of the best female wrestlers in 2013. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not any more notable than she was earlier this month when the article was deleted. Coverage is overwhelmingly routine sports reporting or passing mentions, not the significant independent coverage required by GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the references? I fail to see how a detailed report of her wrestling a match is "routine" or a passing mention. Her matches have been covered in detail by the Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. Meanwhile, SLAM! Wrestling has two instances for her having talking segments on PPV / iPPV 1 and 2. starship  .paint   ~ regal  02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deor (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Let's not ignore the fact that there are now over twenty references to reliable sources independent of the subject in the article. starship .paint   ~ regal  06:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Plentiful references? Yes. Reliable references? I'm not sold on that. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , the five sources I quoted above are approved by WP:Professional Wrestling in our style guide. SLAM! Wrestling is the closest to a mainstream source, being run by the Canadian media company Quebecor. Wrestling Observer is ran by Dave Meltzer, hailed as a foremost expert on the industry, see here and here. Pro Wrestling Torch is ran by Wade Keller, who is probably second to Meltzer but still managed to be quoted by the New York Times, amongst others. As for PWInsider, their chief writers had experience in the industry by working with the USA's #3 company at the time Extreme Championship Wrestling, as well as having written for the Daily News (New York) and various other wrestling magazines since 1995, and they have fact-checking as well. WrestleView was approved as a reliable source before my time by a prominent FA/GA reviewer. I'm afraid I can't immediately go into more detail upon your reply - I will be away for the next three days. (update: I have limited Internet access) starship  .paint   ~ regal  10:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing routine coverage and passing mentions in those references. That's not significant coverage. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , what's so routine about the references I brought up in my 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) post? Those are detailed match reports. starship  .paint   ~ regal  23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Detailed match reports are still routine coverage. Every NFL game has detailed coverage, but they're not considered individually notable.  Miss X Factor, rankings have no value when outcomes are scripted.  That's why, according to WP:NSPORTS, pro wrestling falls under entertainment, not sports. Jakejr (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say that pro wrestling is not a sport, then please don't compare its match reports to NFL games. Under WP:ENTERTAINER, Veda Scott has had multiple notable appearances on television shows as evidenced from the reliable sources' coverage. Also, even if results are scripted, some rankings, like the PWI one she received, are not scripted. starship  .paint   ~ regal  02:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, the application of WP:ROUTINE applies not only to sports, but to all subjects, although the meaning of what constitutes "routine" coverage may vary from one subject area to another. Please see linked guideline.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources provided are reliable but I don't believe match reports cover WP:SIGCOV. PWInsider, PWtorch, and Wrestleview, amongst other reliable sources, give detailed reports on nearly every show.  We've deleted 3MB more times than I can count. They appeared regularly on Raw, Smackdown, Superstars, Main Event, and occasional PPVs for two years.  We could find thousands of match reports if we wanted to.  The sources covering the matches could count towards notability for the shows which they appeared on but are far too routine to go towards the matches -- and even the wrestlers -- which appear on those shows.  Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , 3MB was a group, Veda is an individual. One of the chief reasons supporting deletion was that all of 3MB's info could go into the individuals' pages. If this article is deleted, its information is going to go nowhere.
 * Secondly, we agree that PWTorch/Wrestleview etc are reliable sources. If multiple detailed televised match reports don't guarantee notability, then what from these sources does? I'm sure that you're aware that the majority of references to current wrestlers' articles are made out of these match reports. starship  .paint   ~ regal  11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider match reports to be only slightly more than passing mentions. While WP:GNG doesn't require the subject to be the main focus of the article, one article can cover up to a half a dozen matches meaning that one wrestler can be involved in the show for a few minutes and end up in the article's recap of the event, a recap often features dozens of other wrestlers.  From what I can tell most (but clearly not all) of the sources mention her 2-5 times and describe her interviewing position on the show.
 * Interviewing's only for references 33-38, nowhere near qualifying for a "most"? starship  .paint   ~ regal  12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I only looked at her ROH career. 33-38 are interviews, 39-40 is commentary, 42 is both commentary and an interview, 44 is an interview again.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the sources themselves. I have no problems with how they're used in the article.  We use these event summaries from reliable sources to verify the results.  Passing mentions are fine for that.  But that's pretty much all there is to this article and that's what separates her from clearly notable wrestlers whose articles have many match reports as references.  Looking through the wrestling AfD archive I recall a number of deleted articles which had sources identical to Scott's.  Eli Cottonwood, Jacob Novak, and Brandi Reed stand out from memory.  Sources aside, she's never won a notable championship and while she won the Rookie of the Year award from PWI, as previous winners Ace Hawkins and Tim Zbyszko show, that's no indication that the recipient gets an article.LM2000 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cottonwood and Novak apparently stopped wrestling since their WWE releases, therefore their notability would never increase. Reed has apparently never wrestled a match. The only similarity is that between all three and Scott is that they have not won a major championship. Does that mean every wrestler who hasn't won a major championship should have his/her article deleted, regardless of whether they've wrestled or appeared in a major promotion with national TV coverage? Jinder Mahal? Ricardo Rodriguez (wrestler)? Garett Bischoff? Rosa Mendes? Wes Brisco? Taryn Terrell? What makes these wrestlers worthy of articles? Is there something that the reliable sources gave them but not to Veda Scott? If so, what is it? starship  .paint   ~ regal  12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Scott is in a similar position to Novak and Cottonwood though. If she hangs up to boots tomorrow what will her claims to notability be?  I believe that WP:ENT covers the examples you listed above... Terrell was ECW GM, an OVW Champ, and was a top Impact Knockout before her pregnancy; Rosa and Rodriguez managed champions; Brisco and Bischoff were involved in major PPV feuds.  The only title Scott ever won isn't notable and it's not from a notable promotion and most of her opponents are redlinks.  Scott's main accomplishment so far seems to be her PWI Rookie Award.  It would be WP:CHRYSTAL to assume, however likely it may be, that she has a bright future ahead of her.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay good, at least we have some progress on the criteria needed. Since this article already has substantial information, I propose that it be restored if she meets any one of the following criteria to judge success.
 * a) if she is given the spotlight to wrestle a match on one of ROH's pay-per-views or is somehow involved in main event feuds. This is because ROH has no female-specific championship to gauge success.
 * b) if she manages a champion in ROH / or becomes a GM.
 * c) if she wins a championship in a top female-only promotion like Shimmer, Women Superstars Uncensored or Shine.
 * d) if she joins and debuts for WWE (NXT) / TNA (if it still has a TV slot) on a permanent basis.
 * e) if she gains international success by winning championships in Japan / Mexico etc.
 * f) if she is ranked in the top 10 female wrestlers of the year by Pro Wrestling Illustrated.
 * , do you agree? starship  .paint   ~ regal  08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC) By the way, to correct your spelling, it's crystal (chrystal) and lead (lede).
 * Sounds good to me for the most part. Not sure about joining NXT (Cottonwood and Novak did that) or TNA (Athena [their first major female talent, besides maybe Goldy Locks], among other knockouts, has no article).  One PPV match may not cut it either, context is important, a TNA PPV match sounds good on paper but when it turns out to be one of those non-canon PPVs that takes a lot of air out of it.  That aside, there's obviously a good chance she'll be notable one day so if somebody saves a copy of the current page to work off of later, that's fine. lede isn't incorrect.  While crystal is the correct spelling, for some reason WP:CHRYSTAL links to WP:CRYSTAL so I use it just to be different :).  Thanks though, my apologies for being a pretentious asshole! LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * She's already wrestled on a TNA One Night Only that hasn't aired. But I didn't argue that. I argued one ROH PPV. This is because ROH presently has no women's championship at all. Therefore wrestling on a PPV is the pinnacle achievement of a female in ROH. starship  .paint   ~ regal  13:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per LM2000. --Bejnar (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I firmly object to the point that she doesn't have significant coverage. If detailed match/show reports are routine coverage, what then constitutes significant coverage? (for PWTorch/F4Wonline/PWInsider etc)
 * Take a look at Primo (wrestler). He's won multiple championships in the biggest wrestling company in the world, WWE. Could anyone give me an example of significant coverage he has received?
 * It's the pro wrestling websites' job to cover the most notable shows in detail. While notability is not inherited, a wrestler can only become more notable by appearing on a notable show with a significant role. The less notable the show, the less detailed the coverage. This or this or this is what I call routine coverage. Almost every match is one sentence because the show is not notable enough. On the other hand, this and this or this or this is clearly much more detailed coverage. Every match is a paragraph or more, and sometimes opinions and ratings are offered.
 * There should be no doubt that Scott is appearing on a notable show. It's whether she is appearing in a significant role. If you wish to reply,, and   starship  .paint   ~ regal  12:14, 8 August 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.