Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's World Championship


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Women's World Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Dilbaggg (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The article does not list any valid source. It is compared to the article World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (original version) which was established in 1905 and has numerous valid source including its publication in new Yorks Time edition of 1905:. It is the first recognized wrestling championship worldwide, acknowledged in every wrestling sources and organizations that offer wrestling such as WWE, WCW, NWA, etc and fits WP:PW/RS. However the only two source sited on the article Women's World Championship was published in 2011 and, before which the whole concept was unheard of, it has no significance in any sources listed valid in WP:PW/RS and no news publication ever before 2011, unlike the 1905 title. This single source that the article is based on has 0 validity, it in no ways fits WP:RS. Other than this two unreliable sources there is not a single source of its existence. Most of the people listed were not wrestlers like Josephine Blatt she was a circus strongwoman, she was never a wrestler, no record of any matches or when ever she won this fictional title. Most of the entries have "when?" tag because there is no source at all to when ever if at all these people actually won the title. Prior to 2012 her article never named her a wrestler, you can check the revision history. She was only listed a wrestler to give this fictional title credibility, it has no source that she ever wrestled a match let alone win this title. Most of the other women listed have no articles, no source to verify they ever existed let alone were wrestlers or won this title. Mildred Burke is the only actual wrestler in the list who is the first womens champion ever but that was a completely different title, it was NWA World Women's Championship which she won 1935/1937, and has valid source. . Her battle for this title is not recognized anywhere, she is also disputed and officially acknowledged by NWA to have won the title in 1950, yet since this source exist (which still do not fit WP:PW/RS it has been included she won in 1935/1937]]. Returning the the Women's World Championship, to give this fake title credibility they included wrestlers who won completely different titles. There is no acknowledgement of this title ever before 2011 and after 2011 only this single unreliable source which has no validity exists: and, which do not meet Wp:RS guidelines, and prior to 2011 were non existent and most of the contents on the articles are violations of WP:OR and WP:POV. The WP:PW has been on general sanction for violating WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:POV, this is just another examples and it violates all three. The lack of any credible source and the contradictory information in this article which is mostly WP:OR content should be enough to justify its deletion. WP:N,WP:BIO and WP:V are also violated. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I have written everything that is needed to be known why it should be deleted above. Please read carefully. However I did do one final revision to show further how unreliable and invalid this article is here: Dilbaggg (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - This is a duplicate vote, as Dilbaggg was also the nominator. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but purge pre-1930s  I agree with a lot of what you wrote, my guess is that someone compiled a table and included every pre-1950s lady wrestler who ever claimed to have been a champion. This obviously does not mean that they all held the same championship and sourcing is scarce enough to doubt that some of them ever even made such a claim. However, the Mortenson reign and those that came after it seem to form a single notable title. Burke was an established women's champion, separate from the NWA, and several sources describe her as Women's World Champion, or simply "women's wrestling champion", without promotional branding. However, June Byers defeated her in a controversial fashion to be the recognized as the NWA world champion. It's not unusual that NWA would appropriate a different title history, WWF would do the same to their title when they bought Moolah's and it became the WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010).LM2000 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Non of the pre Burke have any credible sources of championship reigns, nor with the exception of Cora Livingston there are any claims they ever held the titles, and no source proves that she won the title in 1910 from any of the ladies mentioned above her. this article is too unreliable and is clearly mixing up different title reigns as one. I agree with purging the pre 1930s, most of them were never wrestlers but strongwomen who never wrestled a match let alone won titles. It is to be noted that Nikkimaria seems to be citing bleacher report's 2011 edition which is just a unverifiable copy paste of the unreliable source provided above. It should be a reminder to her that pre 2013 edition of bleacher report is not reliable per WP:PW/RS and it is clearly said there to refrain from using them. Nikkimaria is known to cite unreliable sources that do not meet the criteria of WP:PW/RS on multiple articles. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a comment. In the early days of pro wrestling, it was a circus attraction. It doesn't see strange a strongwoman winning a title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even called women's world championship then, and there is 0 WP:RS that those strong women ever wrestled let alone won the title unlike the 1905 men's world championship which was published in the New York Times in 1905, there is even a picture of the belt and Frank and George wrestling actual match. Saying circus wrestling is the same as pro wrestling is like saying ammeature wrestling and all forms of wrestling are. Regardles there is no verification that the pre 1930s entries wrestled/won titles, before 2011 when the unreliable source in question came there was absolute no information regarding this title, for example until 2013 Josephine Blatt article named her as a strongwoman, then to give this fake title credibility it was claimed she was a wrestler despite there being no records of her ever fighting. A source of her weightlifting on Mexico was even misinterpreted that she wrestled despite there being no such information on the given source. These types of issues is exactly why WP:PW is under general sanction. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, pro wrestling was part of circus and carnival, so it would be normal some strongmen win a title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A pure WP:OR violating statement, there is no source as to any of those strong women winning it (or even wrestling). Only Cora Livingston from 1910 has a source, it doesn't even connect the titles, could be different titles, also the source in her articles do not fit WP:PW/RS and it was only created in 2018. No WP:V at all for the pre 1930s portion. Every WP:RS cites the 1905 men's title irrespective of gender as the first "professional wrestling" world championship ever. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is original research to state that initially pro wrestling was part of the circus and carnival shows? History disagrees. Is it OR to say that some of the early champions were or started out as "strongmen"? Please explain how those statements are original research? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another side note I can use various unreliable sources like that mens world championship also existed long before 1905, according to that article "In 1898, the Frenchman Paul Pons, also named “the Colossus”, was the first Professional World Champion", but it just does not fit WP:PW/RS yet seems better than misinterpreting a strongwoman's weightlifting actions as her "wrestling" as the post 2013 article on Josephine Blatt did. Non of the pre 1930s entries have any credible source, no WP:V they were wrestlers. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But you agree that at least a portion of these reigns can be properly sourced and are notable, right? We can argue about who belongs in the table, who belongs in the prose, and who doesn't belong in either, but AfD is not the place for that.LM2000 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, struck my original pre-30s comment. Let's go where sources take us, a concept article like Women's championships in WWE would accommodate multiple titles if we agree there is no single lineage.LM2000 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * LM2000This lineage has 0 Wp:V, there is no source when the first champion Josie won the tile, nor anyone before Cara Livingston winning the title in 1910 (and that might be a totally different title from this), the earliest section that has the slightest Wp:V despite not fitting WP:PW/RS is Cara Livingston from 1910, absolutely no one before her does. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. If we agree Cara Livingston was a women's champion ~1910 then she should be included somewhere. Or the article can just cover the Mortenson/Burke lineage if that's what we decide to do. Either way, we all seem to agree there's no notability issue, so this should be closed and taken to the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, this page should be closed and taken to the talk page. The points made here are good and should be preserved though. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - To say that the "whole concept was unheard of" before 2011 is disingenuous at best. It is attested to on page 15 in Wrestling Title Histories by Gary Will and Royal Duncan. The fourth, and most recent, edition of this book was published in 2000, and it is the most comprehensive book of its kind. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter called it "Easily the greatest reference work ever published on pro wrestling", and, in response to the mentions above of The New York Times, it is significant that the newspaper referred to Will and Duncan's book as "The bible of the sport". While portions of the title history differ, there is no dispute about the existence or notability of the title. The article can be edited, but deletion is clearly the wrong approach. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * GaryColemanFan Best if you link the source you are talking about. lets see what it exactly says and what it doesn't say. And the said book was published in 2000, not the dates given on the article, unlike the NYT edition of 1905 which published the men's title win in the exact year, why should something written on something a 100 year later be credible when there is absolutely no source from that time? NYT in 2000 isn't the same as NYT from 1900s. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:RS, nowhere in there does it disqualify a source if it's printed "more than X years after the event". Third-party? Check. Published? Check. Fact checking and accuracy? Has editors involved to check, has been cited by Meltzer and a ton of others as "the bible" and accurate. Oh and, it has a whole section dedicated to it - significant coverage, in reliable, published, third party source. The very definition of "RS". MPJ-DK (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The source he mentioned has not even been provided yet, let it be provided and see what it actually includes and what it does not. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So please provide the cost of a scanner or copier and an address to send it to - You do know what a book is right? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MPJ-DK if it is something that cannot be viewed and you are claiming what a book contains without even being able to see it that is definitely WPOR violation, best to use only viewebale WP:RS, at least the NYT extract for the 1905 championship that is so accurate it was published in the year the match happened, also having a picture of Frank and George wrestling as well as a picture of the title, and it is widely accepted by Wp:PW/RS as the first world championship. This title does not have 1 % the WP:V that has. Anyway I have decided to close the discussion and cancel deletion, rather the matter would be resolved on talk page of that article keeping in mind what has been discussed here. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a complete and utterly ridiculous pile of misinformation that has no hold in any WP guideline or policy ever written. Please educate yourself before making such categorical statements, especially when you are 100% wrong. LM2000 even gave you the appropriate guideline right below this. Articles using printed sources are not "OR" according to any guideline anywhere on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said the book is unreliable, I said your claims could be OR (like claiming to read the book when you haven't, we can't be sure what you will add is based on the book or not anyway), since the contents of the book can't be read, we cannot be sure what it says, best to use sources per WP:PW/RS anyway. Non of the sources mentioned in the articles and even 90% wrestlers mentioned in the articles have sources per WP:PW/RS. Why keep talking about a book which isn't cited, can't be viewed (unlike the NYT 1905 extract) anyway. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So what guideline are you citing when you imply OR? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I have already agreed with LM2000, I have decided the deletion proposal be cancelled, the discussion be continued on talk page and unreliable contents with no WP:RS be purged. This may be my final comment here, waiting for this discussion to close. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, but thank you for owning up to the fact that you made an OR claim without any actual facts to back it up. Please do start a conversation on the talk page or whever when you can explain what makes you not AGF the prinited claim and how WP:PAPERONLY does apply here "because you said so". So please, be a wikipedian of your word, reply on the talk page.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not made any OR claim, if anyone is doing it its you. I just pointed out a possibility that a book which can't be viewed may be misrepresented. Misrepresentation is a common feature of WP:PW, no OR claim here, just see Talk:Josephine Blatt, how a source was totally misrepresented there. Anyway the discussion closed from my part, anyone who wants can remove the deletion tag. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I promised not to quote your replies to you, but your claims could be OR (like claiming to read the book when you haven't, we can't be sure what you will add is based on the book or not anyway) this is where you clearly stated you that you could consider what I said as "OR", and then referred to me stating that I read the book - I didn't actually state that I read the book, I am not the editor who originally introuduced the "Wrestling Title Histories" book into the discussion either.. But I don't expect you to acknowledge this, nor take the discussion to the talk page as you stated. I've done 10 minutes of research on the matter and I have found several RS entries that state she wrestled, and some articles to pint to where idea of the "Women's World Championship" claim came from. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:PAPERONLY.LM2000 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with the statements put forward by GaryColemanFan and LM2000, the concept of a "Women's World Championship" in professional wrestling that predates the creation of the NWA World Women's Championship. The Will & Duncan source is a reliable source, about the most well researched and most respected source on professional wrestling championship history prior to 2000. Your agument focuses on certain content in the article - was there a 19th century "Women's World Champion"? Dubious that it was called that, but a content problem doesn't mean the overall article should necessarly be deleted. A couple of facts below. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not list any valid source - Notability is not about the sources presented in the article.
 * the only two source sited on the article Women's World Championship was published in 2011 factually incorret, not sure where you got the published date from?? I can find archived versions of the site going back to 2003, and the Will & Ducan source predates that in print format, with 4 versions published in the 1990s.
 * Most of the entries have "when?" tag Not a deletion criteria, and had 3 out of 15 lines tagged and now has 4, does not fall in my definition of "most".
 * She was only listed a wrestler to give this fictional title credibility, now who is doing "OR" in regards to the movtivation of an editor. Please do not "assume" something to suit your POV, that's not WP:NPOV.
 * Mildred Burke is the only actual wrestler - hmmm could have sworn that Cora Livingston's and June Byers's article states she's a full time wrestler. Do you have any sources claiming these other women were not at some point professional wrestlers? Again you engage in OR to support your claim.
 * Nope the issues have already been discussed above, you do not seem to have the time to read them. I hate repeating myself, so please read before making claims to suit your POV. Nope non of the sources in the article given fits WP:PW/RS. I already said to User:GaryColemanFan provide the source he is talking about, lets see what it includes or not. I have not maintained anything to suit my POV, your manner of interaction shows you are though, and I do not trust your immature behavior from your interaction on the talk page. At least the others commenting are all sensible. Most of the things you wrote I already addressed above, you do not seem to have the time to read them. Most of them listed like I said were strongwomen, not wrestlers, rather reviewing Josie's edit history I see malicious practice, she was only listed a wrestler to give this fake title credibility, upto 2013 her edit history doesn't show her to be a wrestler. Rather a source of the weightlifting career in Mexico has been deliberately misinterpreted as her wrestling their, checking the source I found nothing at all about wrestling, its just weight lifting. The pre existing when tags from 2014 clearly shows there is nothing to suggest when those strongwomen wrestled, won the titles, if at all this is the same title, from whom they won it, so on. It is officially recognized ll over the world as per WP:Rs that the 1905 title is the first world title. I have already showed other sources claim there were other men's title in the 1890s, but I will never include them as they do not fit WP:PW/RS, but you seem to be doing the opposite pusihing your POV, adding unreliable sources and OR content. Cora Livingston was only written in 2018, the sources on her article are not WP:PW/RS. It appears like entirely different title regimes are being listed as a single title in this article. Regardless I totally agree with LM2000 if not deleted the pre 1930s section should be purged for the lack of WP:V, WP:RS and inclusion of WP:OR content. The majority of other editors already agreed that section is unreliable.  Lets see what other editors have to say and what the consensus leads to. Non WP:PW members are encouraged for neutral view. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * keep I agree with Gary and MPJ-DK. There are sources and the complains are refuted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I am beginning to think the section that has sources even if they do not fall on WP:PW and are not WP:V can stay, but those without sources can be removed regardless of what this consensus leads to. Well since its only Wp:PW members commenting I do not trust the neutrality of this discussion anymore, so I no longer care of the outcome of this discussion. But as per normal wikipedia policy things that would violate WP:V and WP:RS may be removed and I have already mentioned some malicious misleading practices like in Talk:Josephine Blatt page. I am done with this. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have decided to remove the deletion tag, the matter can be resolved on the article talk page, the discussion here should be preserved and moved there. Please close the discussion. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2020 (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.