Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (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   no consensus. , with leave to renomiate after the event has actually occurred if no coverage arises. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WWE Capitol Punishment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

As the previous AfD, I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. Following previous AfD, it was redirected. After some discussion with the closer User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011.05 it was re-created, apparently because these two sources were enough to satisfy King of Hearts:. The first of those is some trivial coverage about a short advert for the event; the second is a transcript of the show during which the advert was shown. It's all advertising; there is simply no significant coverage, outside of that generated by the WWE who organize it - and it is unlikely there will be such coverage until the event occurs. The phrase currently included, that NBC Sports [..] cited this Wikipedia entry for the background of the event just shows; we're making this notable; it isn't notable yet.  Chzz  ► 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Strikes as a over-zealous deletionist arguement for an event that will take place in less than 3 weeks time! If it doesn't happen, ironically it'll be even more noteworthy.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And in what way does it meet notability guidelines now?  Chzz  ► 08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ive found many sources that could be added that make this notable-- Steam Iron  09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great (if they're reliable sources) - will you be adding them to the article, or telling us what they are?  Chzz  ► 09:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 15:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources, as per nom. Those who are supporting keeping this article need, per WP:BURDEN to provide sources to back up this content. As far as I can see, there are none. Anthem 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This doesn't surprise me that an overzealous deletionist like you would honestly bring up another Nomination for deletion AGAIN even though WWE's been talking about this for like the last two weeks. There's a great thing called Google and it lists many sites covering this so yeah it's pretty significant Chzz. Voices in my Head   WWE  19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a couple of things going on in my thinking, but the main one is that by the time this discussion closes, the event will be only 9 days in the future.  Even if you think that this won't be notable until it happens (debatable), what's the point of removing information from WP for 9 days? Redirecting this to List of WWE pay per view events will accomplish almost nothing. It will without question be notable after June 19, so unless you want to open the larger question of whether articles on individual wrestling PPV events should be deleted, this should be an autokeep.  More broadly, there should be some compromise reached on how far in the future it's appropriate to create these articles.  But this one's already been created, and keeping it does zero harm.  Meelar (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A match has just been announced by WWE this conversation is over.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - obviously if those sources are mentioning it regardless of how it is (Even if it is advert), its them mentioning it and thus giving the event credibility. This would be like deleting every WWE or TNA ppv event just because the NY Times doesn't have an article on it. Thats the thing, these events never receive these type of attention unless its like WrestleMania. This problem has never come up until now, just because of the show being related to the US capital. #smh-- T ru  c o  503 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy currently it does not satisfy my interpretation of the general notability guidelines, but the article is well enough written to bring back to mainspace if/when the event receives significant third party coverage. I removed the statement about NBC quoting this article, it is something of a circular reference.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep --Kumioko (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - These discussions about deleting articles on WWE PPVs which are only 2 weeks away are flat-out ridiculous. I think no-one argues about deleting articles which refer to events one or two months away, but some users have made this into their personal vendetta. Arguments provided by the likes of Chzz give a lifely testament to this and only confirm the assumption that Wiki is misused in large parts for self-promotion. Behind the shield of source credibility/reliability, they would not change their minds for anything in the world. Anyway, asking for other sources on wrestling PPVs outside the wrestling community (since sources like WWE, ticketmaster or host arena websites are said to be nonreliable) is to produce an almost conspiracy-like rationale behind the argument. If only sources like NY Times, LA Times, CNN or BBC were to be considered reliable, then half of the articles on, say, NBA, NFL, NHL wouldn't be reliable either. Long story short: I think there are enough reliable sources to safely predict that the PPV will indeed take place and, hence, the entry should be kept. Blocpark (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that the WWE website, ticketmaster, or the area website are unreliable, I am sure they are entirely correct. Nobody is saying the event will not take place.  Mere existence is not grounds for an article. For example, I exist, and there is no article about me.  The issue is they are not independent of the PPV, which is the foundation of the general notability guidelines.  From WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.  Significant coverage, yes, reliable, yes, independent, no.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how ticketmaster.com (which has absolutely NO affiliation with WWE or any sport in any shape or form) isn't considered a reliable source? WWE.com I get, VerizonCenter.com I sort of get, but how is Ticketmaster.com NOT considered reliable?-- Voices in my Head   WWE  14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I said ticketmaster was not independent of the PPV.  From WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.  I assume ticketmaster is selling tickets to the event, thus they are affiliated, and not independent of the event.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty much over. The KEEP(s) outnumber the Delete(s) by one-thirds. And one of the dissents is an editor who many of us are certain has a personal vendetta to delete all wrestling related articles on Wikipedia.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly second this assumption/perception. (Hmm, I wonder whether all of the NASCAR articles are actually notable.) Blocpark (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I remind editors that this is not a vote, and suggest reading WP:DISCUSSAFD. It would be helpful if anyone saying "keep" could produce evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source", in accord with WP:N, instead of just saying I like it.  Chzz  ► 16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying, basically, is: "I remind self-promoting editors that they have always been acting like dictators and are expected to maintain this attitude." Also, your call for independent sources perfectly matches my earlier assessment that source credibility is often used as false pretenses for denying any wrestling-related articles a right to exist, since even reliable non-primary sources are regularly shot down. Hey, I suggest a new group on Wiki: "Association of Wikipedians Who Like Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Articles, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particular Articles, and That Does Indeed Mean They Are Deletionists". Blocpark (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * .....Oh snap....-- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comments pertaining to this article, rather than me?  Chzz  ► 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A match has been announced and we've got moflippin third party source for it. This discussion is over you overzealous deletionist.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:CIVIL. Discuss the article and its notability.  Discussions of nominators or other editors will not be tolerated.  This includes using the term deletionist.  Further, this is a discussion, not a vote, the actual arguements and opinions put forward by Keeps and Deletes are more important than the quantity of Keeps and Deletes. The359  ( Talk ) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy - Seems to be the best of all worlds at the moment. Article will likely gain notability once the event has happened, therefore to prevent the loss of all the hard work that has already been put into the article, it is best to save it off of mainspace for now. The359  ( Talk ) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy I agree with The 359. Chzz is way out line as usual in another attempt to be Mr. Powerful and delete articles for the hell of it. All WWE PPV's are included on wiki, they'll continue to be included on wiki, and every last WWE produced PPV is on here. Therefore, all future PPV's one day, one way or another will be on here no matter how much you argue previous to the event. Like Over The Limit, all of you who tried to remove it that lost, I laugh at you. And after this event happens and it's on wiki with all the other PPV's I'll laugh. Chzz is being a control freak with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of other WWE PPV articles does not automatically make this article notable.  Nor does it necessarily mean that those past articles are notable either.  And once again, this is not a vote nor is this about "one-uping" others based on the results of an AFD.  If you wish to have your opinions valued in an AFD discussion, I suggest not making them while hiding behind an anonymous IP to slander another user. The359  ( Talk ) 07:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with Userfy. However, I like to think that notability lies in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what is not notable to one, may be perfectly notable to the other. For instance, I don't know anything about NASCAR, hence articles on the matter are not at all notable to me. But still I wouldn't nominate articles on NASCAR for deletion, for I can imagine that they are quite notable to others more involved in the subject matter. I think it is about time that this tolerance may be allowed to supporters of professional wrestling, too. Some editors clearly do not have this tolerance. 'Ein jeder ist für Toleranz, nur wenn's drauf ankommt nicht so ganz!' Blocpark (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While notability may lie in the eyes of the beholder in the real world, Wikipedia is not the real world. On Wikipedia, a notable subject is something that has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the instruction. But that is exactly the point I am trying to make: even sources which are non-primary and reliable are regularly dismissed as non-reliable and/or affiliated. Against such a backdrop, of course, no reasonable evaluation of sources at hand can be possible. Blocpark (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll accept that WWE - the channel - has a vested interest in promoting the event; thus, their website cannot be used to establish notability.

Ticketmaster makes money selling tickets for the event. Thus, they also have a vested interest, and are not independent of the subject (the event).

Ditto the arena.

Ditto iTunes.

The article has two references which are independent; "Wrestling News" and "NBC Sports".

The piece in "Wrestling News" is very short, and all it tells us about the event is that the event exists, and that a person called "Truth" might or might not appear in it.

The "NBC Sports" link is about the poster. All it tells us about the event is, that it's planned for June 19 at the Verizon Center.

That's it. That is all the facts we've been able to gather. Thus, we do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" - and each of the terms in that phrase are clearly defined in WP:GNG.

It doesn't matter whether the article is about a wrestling event, or a person, or a company, or a museum, or a computer game, or a website...etc. It is nothing to do with anyone's opinion as to whether something is, or is not, "notable" to them - it's a question of trying to give the readers good information about the topic. We can't find enough reliably-sourced information to support this article at this time.  Chzz  ► 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not this shit again. They promoted the hell out of this last night on RAW and are already building the card. This is setting an annoying precedent. We went through this exact same shit with WWE Over the Limit (2011), which was moved to the article incubator, and subsequently moved back to the articlespace after it was declared absurd and pointless to incubate it in the first place. ("WP:OTHERSTUFF HERP DERP" No. This is the same BS that is going to go in the same pointless cycle.) You're wasting all of our time yet again with this. You may be willing to type 20 paragraphs every month to try and delete every wrestling PPV ever made for God knows whatever reason, but there are better things we all need to be doing. This is a complete waste of resources and a complete annoyance. No references you deem suitable? WP:SOFIXIT and stop having these absurdly long AFDs that are rendered completely moot and pointless days after closure, or in this case, pointless YESTERDAY. This is the third one I've seen, and there's likely more. I've wasted ten minutes on this and others a lot more, and I'm going to have hardasses spewing WP:CIVIL my way in-between their passive aggressive condescending nonsense. Fuck everything about this AFD and all the other now utterly moot AFDs. No vote, since it really won't matter.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU Agent Vodello. I'm gonna say this right now (and forgive me for my language) but if you have such a DAMN problem with every article Chzz why don't you fix it for a change? You don't seem to have a life if you can put up every one of these articles up for deletion. Talkers Talk people I don't spend all my time like you on talk pages I'm always on articles creating them only to see people who don't know the difference between the edit button and CSD take them down. You know what's wrong with the article Chzz? SOFIXIT!!! again sorry for the language and Chzz you don't need to leave me another WP:CIVIL message on my talk page.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't use caps and bold to try and make your point; and please do not claim that I don't "have a life" - that's not very nice.
 * If I could find reliable sources, I would fix it. I cannot.  Chzz  ► 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing how this meets the WP:GNG, as Chzz points out above. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article lacks coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant    talk    00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SOFIXIT!!! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Have y'all forgotten that? That's what this whole website was made for. That's what the CORE CONCEPT is!-- Voices in my Head   WWE  01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I have not forgotten that, but you can't add reliable sources that don't exist. Wikipedia was founded on several other core policies, which you may wish to read. Alpha Quadrant    talk    01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to 'fix it' - that didn't work . Another tried  and you, Nascarking, reverted . Twice  . So I tried to 'sofixit' through AfD - and did . Again, it reappeared, without meeting requirements . The basic point remains; WP:V. At risk of repeating myself: Where's the "significant coverage"?  Chzz  ►  01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything with the article because some editors started an edit war over the one Wrestling News Source. I'm sitting on the sideline after the page is unlocked. I'm tired of doing the work and having FOX News over here tell me this page doesn't have any reliable sources. I've been looking at the history tab and I haven't seen you guys doing any work to make it better. Especially you Chzz, all I've seen you do is put things up for deletion. You could at least go to Google and help us with this instead of telling us it doesn't have enough sources every single effin day. WE KNOW ALREADY-- Voices in my Head   WWE  01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so - you understand that there are no independent reliable sources? Or at least, not enough to show notability? I've looked for them too - and I cannot find any. If you've found some though - just mention them here. I'm sure an admin will be quite happy to add them for us.  Chzz  ► 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * New sources do not necessarily have to be added to the article to change the position of participants at an AfD. I would gladly change my position if I were shown significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, either here, or on the article talk page.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sky Sports -- T ru  c o  503 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately, the phrase, "which you can see live and exclusive on Sky Box Office" leads me to think that Sky is not independent - ie, they also have a vested interest in promoting the event. But at least we're heading in the right direction. Anything else?  Chzz  ► 02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its difficult to find independent sources that are reliable since the ones that have news about wrestling are considered "dirt sheet" websites. IDK how much this FUSE.tv link helps-- T ru  c o  503 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it helps much; I'm sorry. And I do sympathize re. the lack of reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is an Encyc, and as such, we want to add info that is verifiable. If it's not reported in reliable sources, then it's not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopaedia. And by "reliable sources", I mean, something with a "reputation for fact-checking" and "editorial control" (WP:RS). If we could present information supported by good sources, I'd be very happy to keep the article. But - honestly? Right now, I don't think we can. So, it's perhaps suitable for other websites (right now), but not an encyclopaedia.  Chzz  ► 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But under that basis, that would mean every PPV article that is on Wikipedia must go through AfD. Including those maybe even that are GA's and FA's. -- T ru  c o  503 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you want! This discussion is nothing more than a huge waste of time. Some editors wouldn't change their minds for anything in the world. They HATE professional wrestling and bathe in self-righteousness - and that is all that matters to them. Here I stand, I will not move seems to be their motto. If they applied the same meticulous scrutiny to articles/topics they like, they would have to delete many of them too. Ah whatever, this discussion is in vain anyway, let them self-promote... Blocpark (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just end this discussion for the next 2 hours until the page is unlocked again. Unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything so deleting it while the page was Locked for 3 Wikipedia days would be WTF. If anything let's pick this conversation back up in 3 Wikipedia days days since we lost editing time on the article because it was locked.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How would that be "WTF"? It's not like we are coming up with a bunch of sources in the AFD... — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 01:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that was my stupid Auto Correct I meant to Put What The Hell but shortened. As in if you're really gonna delete the article even though it's been locked for three days then what the hell.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  01:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I found a better third party source than the one on the article for the match already and for one yet to be announced that will be announced Friday on SmackDown .-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  03:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs can't be used as a source.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh??? That's it I'm using WWE.com for sourcing this is too difficult.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Info on the blog doesn't work as a RS. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You used a blog for one, and WWE.com for the other, I removed the blog, and left WWE.com.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the out come of this afd is userfy then userfy it here-- Steam Iron  06:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a waste of time It's very clear to everyone that an article will be created and referenced with enough reliable sources for inclusion for this pay-per-view when it occurs on June 19, 2011 or possibly sooner. It's a waste of time and effort you could be spending on improving the encyclopedia instead of grasping at straws and linking to policies to try and delete an article that will be more than likely be improved on in less than two weeks and will be a article worth keeping. This is stupid. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; Erm, the PPV is only two weeks away, why would it be deleted?, OTher PPV articles are usually up WAY before the PPV and the Wrestlemania 28 article is up and that is like 10 months away.Muur (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the reason for deletion is there is not enough coverage in reliable sources right now. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 22:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a weak excuse when the article will be notable enough, when there is already an existing article with significant content on it and when the article will certainly not be deletion worthy in two weeks time. It's pointless to point to these faux arguments that it should be deleted when, with 100% surety, it be brought back in due time. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree that perhaps WP:PW's "event" article process needs to be refined, I currently have yet to view a thoroughly convincing argument in favor of the deletion of this article.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy/Delete The arguments of many of the keep votes have been to attack the nominator and defend wrestling instead of addressing the concerns of the articles. The breakdown of the sources is like so, note I stopped after the first 'No' for each row:


 * The fact of the matter is that this fails to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps if wrestling articles have trouble meeting existing notability guidelines, we need to find a community consensus to include wrestling in WP:Athlete with broader definitions of what wrestling events and what additional criteria can be used to determine the notability of the events.  Each event cannot be independently notable.  There must be some sort of clarification that the community can use to judge.  As far as this article goes, all we have is WP:GNG which it fails to meet.  I suggest userfy because chances are this event may become notable after it happens and there is decent content here that should not be lost.--v/r - TP 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP*****I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PERSONAL VENDETTA THAT PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST WWE OR WIKI TO DELETE THIS 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE PPV. PLEASE GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP. — Useucitizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment: I initially would have voted for "keep", but I think TP raises a VERY important issue—the bulk of wrestling articles, especially articles on PPVs, have great difficulty meeting existing notability guidelines. The main reason, as I see it, is that pro wrestling (at least in the U.S.) generally falls in a media black hole between sports and entertainment. I suspect the same applies in countries where pro wrestling has been heavily influenced by the U.S. version. Sports media generally ignore pro wrestling as scripted entertainment, while pro wrestling is drowned out in the entertainment media by film, other non-sports television, music, live theater, et al. This creates a situation where almost all sources that could potentially be used to establish notability are at least peripherally involved in promoting the event. The independent sources that do exist, as one previous commenter stated, are typically denigrated in the industry as "dirtsheets". (Interestingly, it would probably be much easier for Japanese wrestling articles to meet GNG—apparently, Japanese media treat puroresu as if it were a legitimate combat sport, despite it being every bit as scripted as the North American version.) Note, however, that no less of a sportswriting icon than Frank Deford has written: "'...wrestling is a sport. No, not legitimate in the competitive sense, but it is certainly legitimate athletic exercise.'"
 * I second TP's call for a more comprehensive discussion of notability in the professional wrestling context. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PEOPLE! Can we please Stay on Topic?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarking (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2011
 * Absolutely. Topic: I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. - nobody here had provided the slightest evidence to contradict that quite simple assertion; per WP:GNG, WP:V.  Chzz  ► 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did two wiki days ago but apparently according to kelpastick Dirtsheets can't be used as sources. Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I said blogs can not be used as sources, the source I removed was had a blogspot.com url, which could not be used as a source, and would typically have been removed automatically by XLinkBot anyway. I would not have said anything about dirt sheets, because up until I read Glossary of professional wrestling terms, which was about three minutes ago, I had no idea what a dirt sheet was.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys say I can't use blogs as sources. Half the articles on Wikipedia (non wrestling) use blogs as sources. Examples include 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans, You're Getting Older and many more. And you say I can't use a blog as a source while probably every single other article on this website does.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because another article is using a blog as a source does not mean that it is correct to do so, and you are free to fix articles that have improper sourcing.--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clearly you have no clue what a blog is, or what the policy on blogs is. There are two sources that one could possibly confuse as inappropriate blogs:
 * Autoblog UK which is an automotive news site and passes the criteria as it is not ismply an editorial site or a site which repeats other people's news, and is well established and has a variety of authors. Hell, if you had bothered to even look at the article, you'd see it says it was written by David Hobbs, who certain passes the criteria for a notable news source for a motorsport article. <font color="#004400">The359  ( Talk ) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Endurance-Info is also a sports car news site, although more limited in its number of authors, it is still a news site of equivilance to Autosport.com. <font color="#004400">The359 ( Talk ) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI The article has been locked yet again for edit waring till next Saturday.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  21:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources outside the company producing event. Intoronto1125 <font color="Yello"> Talk   Contributions   04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Im still a little confused on this subject. As if right now this event is scheduled to be aired in 6/7 days in many different countries and has been advertised repeatedly by WWE shows (RAW/Smackdown) as well as being advertised by many television stations around the world (Example being Sky in the UK). In addition, the event is currently being previewed by many sites centered around wrestling and sports in general. I dont understand why, instead of taking a minute to search for notibility, this is being placed up for deletion, especially given how close the event is currently. Jamesbuc (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Several attempts have been made to find suitable sources to establish notability. They come up with nothing.  I just checked again.  I just attempted again, and there is nothing new.--kelapstick(bainuu) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt the site Bleachers Report count as notability? Im still confused why WWE's actual site doesnt count as notable infomation considering this is the site which premiers most of the infomation surrounding the event. Jamesbuc (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bleacher Report, based on what I read on its Wikipedia article, can't be used as a reliable source. WWE, while reliable, is not an independant source, and therefore cannot be used for establishing notability.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think thats certainly where a problem lies here, until the event has actually happened, the amount of 'pre-press' release will be mostly sites reporting what has been given to them by the WWE and even then, most of the infomation is hidden away given that while WWE wrestling is indeed popular, it isnt classed as a national sport. In fact the real meat of the article will be after the event, at which point 'notable' reviews as well as venue ticket sales and PPV sale figures will start appearing. The question is though if the article is worth keeping up until that moment.Jamesbuc (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that we can't do anything with this article because it's locked till Saturday.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you request full protection? Most issues were with IPs, it could have easily gotten by with semi-protection.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Usability break
Delete (and not just this article) I've long believed that WP:GNG needs to be made a lot more restrictive, because stuff like this may end up meeting it just due to the vast, immeasurable quantity of printed word on the internet. WP:GNG would be great if it referred just to print sources, or even the web equivalents of print sources, but I've not usually seen it interpreted that way. Anyway. This is sort of like the individual TV episodes for me. I just do not see the lasting encyclopedic significance, not in such a way that all are as a rule considered notable. Survivor Series (1997) is probably notable (although there's a separate article for the reason why). Same for WrestleMania (1985), Over the Edge (1999), I could probably find maybe half a dozen others. These events had real-world significance, not just significance for characters on a television show. Yes, in a way this is a "wrestling isn't covered by the NY Times" argument, because publications like the NY Times would cover the Montreal Screwjob, would cover (at least retroactively) the beginning of a major annual institution, would cover the untimely death of a performer. They would not cover "John Cena's defending the title against R-Truth." And the reason why has precious little to do with anyone's perception of pro wrestling. It's about significant events in the real world. The reason you're not going to find a NY Times article about, I dunno, Backlash (2002) is not because "LOL wrestling!" it's because no one outside of a very vocal yet ultimately relatively small fandom gives a flying rip that Hulk Hogan defended the title against Triple H. The real-world significance of that event? Both men showed up, performed as they were expected, collected their paychecks and went on to the next city. That's not newsworthy, outside of the sort of sources that are dedicated to covering it to the exclusion of other sorts of events. That's not encyclopedically significant. So I would delete just about all of these individual-PPV articles. If there is a pro wrestling wiki to which they could be sent, I think that would be a fantastic idea, because I'm sure for the fandom they are excellent articles. I do not believe that they belong in a general-interest encyclopedia. Going back to the analogy about TV episodes, One for the Road (Cheers) is certainly notable, just as Goodbye, Farewell and Amen or The Puppy Episode. Their notability would not make every episode of any series, or even of those series, automatically notable (though try telling that to WP:LOST). We absolutely can have articles like WrestleMania, Survivor Series, and even the rather unremarkable Cyber Sunday or New Year's Revolution in a general-interest encyclopedia, just as we have articles about the TV series themselves. But the individual editions, unless notable for real-world reasons, are stepping over the line into fan cruft. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So your saying we should delete every wrestling article that's on wikipedia, nice real nice and wikipedia wonders why editors are leaving in a mass exodus.-- Steam Iron  08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you would have gotten that notion. Maybe you should reread my statement. It's a bit far afield of this particular discussion, but I think a discussion a bit far afield of this one should be had. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she is saying that we should delete wrestling articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria for stand alone articles as per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the same way we do with articles about any other subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think somewhere along the line the wrestling wiki-project got the idea that all pay-per-view shows are automatically notable, and I would seriously question that notion. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And somewhere down the line not that long ago, members of WP:PW just stopped giving a damn about notability and just lowered the project's standards severely. That's what happened.-- Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -We were a very well organized project and oversaw numerous good quality articles over the years. However, somewhere down the line our veteran editors began retiring from editing and users like Nascarking (Voices in my Head WWE) with serious issues began filling in their empty seat. Thus began the slow decline. Nascarking, I'd like to remind you that this entire ordeal wouldn't have gotten as far as it has, if it weren't for your hotheadedness and clear stubbornness. I'd also like to remind the editors who've contributed their thoughts to this discussion that the IPs and single purpose accounts that have unfortunately voiced their opinions, however misdirected, do not represent WP:PW's views on this particular AFD case. To Green-eyed girl, WP:PW believes our wikiproject's guidelines completely adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and we will continue to evolve and grow in order to maintain that conformity. The creation of stand-alone pages for each individual Pay-per-view (PPV) event began around 2007 with December to Dismember (2006). Before that, we would simply group the yearly results under a particular event chronology on a main page. For example, the Royal Rumble page originally consisted of brief summaries of each year's Royal Rumble event and listed that event's results. As you can see now the Royal Rumble article is a Featured Article and some of the now stand-alone Royal Rumble pages such as Royal Rumble (2007) are listed under Good Article status. We were simply following a retired user's model that was introduced beginning with the December to Dismember series. The fact is our articles are very well written and we strive for excellence - as corny as that may sound... I will agree with Green-eyed girl's main point, in that there are too many article across all genres that fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A simple look at the list of the UFC events with stand-alone articles, I think, greatly supports Green-eyed girl's argument. Early articles such as UFC 10 all the way to the forthcoming UFC 135, UFC 136, UFC 137, and UFC 140 seem to do just that. Try article's for each ECHL season, such as 1997–98 ECHL season or 2005–06 ECHL season.... all simply containing statistical information. Lets look at albums such as Lady Antebellum (album) and Paramore's All We Know Is Falling which include minimal sources and content to match. But I guess that's just my view. As said, I'm sure we can all find certain issues with virtually every article we come across on the Wiki. My point is simple: are there numerous articles here which may fail a notability overview? Yes. Can they be improved and restructured to conform with notability guidelines? Some. Can the same be done with this particular article, as well as others that may come along in the near future? Certainly so. Again, this issue here certainly didn't have to go on as long as it already has. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't always agree with 3bulletproof16, but he said everything I wanted to say (except that he's put it in a wiki-safe tone, so I'll try and not be as blunt as I could be.) As one of the oldest members of WP:PW that's still active after six years, I have seen some abysmal-looking articles (far worse that what the WWE Capitol Punishment article looks like.) Editors like myself and others being only semi-active, at best, is a good reason for articles not being up to par in quality anymore. I have little time to come and edit anymore, personally. As 3bulletproof16 pointed out, our pay-per-view articles started out as merely articles about the results of what happened, and now those have expanded and now we have articles that are featured or are considered good articles. It isn't because there is a lack of content we could create for articles, it's the lack of editors to spend time creating it. I don't particularly like the assessment that some are giving on this AFD about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as the reason for us wanting to keep it. I don't think it's so much of that as it is "Other Crap Doesn't Get Deleted Or Even Looked At". A lot of articles on Wikipedia are of poor quality, yet they survive for some reason. I don't know what it is about professional wrestling articles, but they get beat up more than anything because of the references we take and don't take and they're a prime target for AFDs because of it. December to Dismember (2006) is the prime example of what the project is capable of, with many of the WWE pay-per-view articles we have. It's like the examples of the UFC and of the Paramore album though. Those articles suck, and I'm not particularly saying this because of this AFD. They have 3-4 references at the most and some of them are either primary references or from possibly unreliable sources. They will survive only because of the sham of a general notability guideline that is enforced. The GNG is a good concept, but it isn't applied everywhere nor is it applied fairly. Because of our own system, the article All We Know Is Falling will forever remain as it is. It's going to sit there and collect dust because we have a policy that as long as we think it meets a minimum requirement, it can stay minimally accepted crap forever on Wikipedia. Specifically we have a section for music in our notability guidelines that allows that particular album to have its own article, even though it won't ever be a good article (at least from what I see). I can click the random article button and just list articles that I could put up for AFD: Frog and Wombat, Jean Faure, KIKC (AM), etc. I personally find it hard to accept, that we can have articles about a ten year old independent film stub, an article about a French Senate member that's two sentences, an article about a country radio station in Montana that is one sentence and all three are more notable than this. What bothers me is obscure one-sentence articles about plants, and because it's a plant, it's notable. Articles like that should never exist. They should be put in one or a couple article listing all of them, instead of having a few thousand articles on separate plants that will never be anything but a stub article. But no, because it's a plant, it is notable and we can have one sentence articles about them. It's frustrating as hell to have a topic like professional wrestling, where we can write sufficient, good and featured articles, but they get targeted because it is what it is and we don't have a policy that specifically protects it. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bulletproof, I agree the presence of users such as Nascar has taken its toll on WP:PW, but there are many veteran editors still active on WP:PW. I'll make a short list for you so you can see:


 * Moe (2005)
 * Oakster (2005)
 * you, 3bulletproof16 (2006)
 * myself, Feedback (2006)
 * MPJ-DK (early 2007)
 * Nikki (early 2007)
 * Crisis (2007)
 * GaryColemanFan (2007)
 * WillC (early 2008)
 * Tony2Times (early 2008)
 * Hazardous Matt (early 2008)

These are all editors, still active today, who have been around for 3 or more years. People like The Chronic, The Hybrid, Naha|, Davnel03 and Mshake3 aren't around on Wikipedia anymore, while guys like Darrenhusted have moved on to editing elsewhere, but we're all still around and can help maintain the project to the top tier status it had during its boom period. I personally don't spent as much time on WP:PW as I used to (due to something called the real world) and I know a lot of the people on this list don't either, but maybe if we help people like Nascar, we can eventually get WP:PW up and running to its former glory. Feed back  ☎ 05:44, 13 June 2011 (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.