Talk:List of professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand

NZWPW's closure.

Right, I'm beginning to get very, very tired of this: no articles exist because NZWPW was a small company. Martin Stirling sold his ring and his belts. CPW and Valley Pro exist because WPW doesn't exist anymore. Multiple people have edited WPW-related articles to reflect it's closure which indicates a consensus has been reached. This is begining to feel a lot like WP: OWN at this point. What do you suggest as a "valid" source? An interview with Martin himself? SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In a reliable independent source. As it stands right now, everything you said there is original research. Consensus does not work without proof. Consensus is irrelevant. If we had a consensus that the sky is green does that make it so? No, because sources say it's blue. Wikipedia requires sources, like it or not. If anyone is trying to own anything right now it's you. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Owning up to one's actions is an admirable personality trait. Just saying. I'm not the one demanding people show me personally proof that I approve of or I'm reverting their edits. That's the definition of WP:OWN. Keeping something incorrect because there are no online sources is a tad ludicrous, not to mention the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I'd like to know why an independent third party hasn't been brought into this discussion since no consensus is able to be reached given myself and the other user both (factually) say WPW is shut and you think that isn't good enough because you're demanding a source which meets your approval when I've stated multiple times there are none online and that the owner has sold the ring and other companies have sprung up. SkylerLovefist (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with personal preference from me. That is your issue. The reality is that we have a source that says that NZWPW is inactive. This is what creates the issue. In order to defy that source you need another one to counter it. This has always been not just my position - it is supported by Wikipedia rules in sourcing. I am defending the rules, not acting on a personal preference. You make these statements but because we have a source that contradicts you in part, you just saying so doesn't meet the criteria of the rules that govern this site in sourcing. That trumps any claim to consensus you have. The reality is this. A reliable source says the promotion is inactive. That makes it fact. You have no right to alternative facts without a source. As by your own admission there are none, the source that says it is inactive stands. Consensus can not over rule it.

I am not stopping you from seeking a third opinion. Why don't you seek one? A neutral one who has had no involvement thus far. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And your only counter to myself on Socks03's edits (i.e. consensus) is "I don't believe you, you have to prove it to me and me specifically." I've explained to you multiple times why there is no source explicitly stating the company has closed. I've also explained the status. Also, where is this "reliable source?" There's nothing linked in the article which indicates the company's status. That's OR in itself. The article in the link in this page simply has a 12 year old list of companies and on WPW's own page you have a broken link and a ticket sales page which says nothing about the status of the page itself.SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Clearly you are not interested in co-operating under the rules of Wikipedia, and put words into my mouth that I never uttered. Further, you show no inkling of even trying to understand what original research is. I consider you not here to create an encyclopedia. There is indeed a link on the page that indicates it's status, or if it has been removed without my knowledge I shall restore it. This conversation is closed. Under Wikipedia rules, NZWPW is inactive. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And in actually the company is closed. Thus the problem. Unless I've been lied to and there's a big conspiracy to lie to me personally about the status of a company I used to work for. So I'm essentially being told that incorrect information is fine because I'm not meeting your standard. What you're displaying is literally WP:OWN. You're acting like I have to prove *to you* that I'm right. This is further reinforced by your statement about "There is indeed a link on the page that indicates its status." I know that neither of them worked because I checked them. And, shock horror, they're both what I say they are: A ticket sales page and a dead link. If the dead link did in fact work, it's a fan written website anyway, because that's what Kayfabia is. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, since we're throwing policies around, this one fits the situation perfectly. Ignore All Rules

The company is dead, and no-one is going to write an article for me simply because I say "Some guy on Wikipedia keeps reverting my edits because even though the thing I'm trying to edit has no sources, he keeps trying to complain I have no sources to say a dead company is dead." I'm just following policy. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not following policy. You are in violation of the rules of original research, conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Kayfabia is not listed in either way on the source list so you can not make the claim you have, especially as the site has now closed. Just making these points and that is all. I recommend you move on. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because you're factually wrong and arguing semantics because you refuse to ever be wrong. I'm not saying Kayfabia proves my point, I'm saying it disproves yours. You're trying to argue and tell me my update is OR, yet there are no sources to back up the status quo either. So why is my factually correct addition (which does follow the rules if you'd follow what I linked) is a problem while the information currently there is unsourced as well. WP:OWN is against policy too and I see a lot of that going on here. Moreover, Kayfabia is a fan-owned and fan-edited site. By Wikipedia's policy, that falls under an unreliable source and OR. Furthermore, trying to cite COI and NPOV are more goalpost moving. At this point, you're literally using WP:OWN to prevent a change you keep preventing other users making. SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

So, any other contributors want to weigh in on this? SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Addicted. With no source, it's WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's nice. I've already explained why it isn't and why this is WP:OWN as usual from you both. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking other users to follow WP:V is not WP:OWN. Also, it's not good to ask for more opinions and complain if the opinion is not the one that you expected. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: - Thank you for your support. I would add that's it's also not good to complain if the opinion is not what one expected when they have a COI as admitted above and previously. It smacks very much of a lack of NPOV. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Says someone engaging in WP:OWN on multiple articles... SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Promotions to add

River City Pro Wrestling, Maniacs United, Aftershock Pro Wrestling (APW), Asylum Pro, Hughes Academy, Heathen Combat, Professional Wrestling Entertainment (PWE), Valiant Pro, Kiwi Pro Wrestling, Australasian Wrestling and Martial Arts Association, Arena Wrestling Alliance, South Pacific Wrestling Association, Unified Championship Wrestling (formally Ultimate Championship Wrestling) Seanpaulk (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

None of them have articles on Wikipedia so they are not to be added. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)