Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (4th nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. WP:V non-negotiable. Proto::► 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Death Valley Driver Video Review[edit]
This article contains no third-party sources whatsoever. I requested on November 29 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Previous AfDs (1, 2, 3) have been riddled with sockpuppetry and ignored the sourcing issue. Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:WEB so I don't see why this article should be kept. Jayden54 10:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I gotta agree with Jayden here. Couldent have said it much better myself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notability was well established in previous AfDs, and the sockpuppetry was all on the delete side. SirFozzie 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established in the article. Sounds like advertising as well. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably speedyable, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB and is unverified/OR. The editors have had literally a year and a day to produce reliable sources and have failed to do so. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with what Centrx said above.BooyakaDell 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I will respcfully disagree with Centrx, being not all to familiar with all of the source material, I do know that there is verfiable content. If given some time I would be able to dig up the necessary sources or request undeletion. The mere fact that I have located independant translations of the newsletter, leads me to believe that the information is truly out there. A quick google search is showing me that some of the third part sites that did reference DVDVR seem to be no longer functioning and/or unavailable. NegroSuave 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/browse_thread/thread/e06e785bfd3c7d5/9689d5c222a840c9?q=DVDVR&lnk=ol& Is the thread in which it mentions Lance Storm's opinions of the newsletter. By acknowledging and taking the time to discuss its faults he has deemed it somewhat of note. Take of that what you will. That is already in the article but it was an argument successfully used for another AFD in which the only way to verify its notability was via the site of a movie director, before which there was no way to verify the notability of the particular item. Further more doing a search on the founder of the Newsletter's name pulls up links to many different websites and forums that link to and or repost the information in the Video reviews. Therefore further verifying its notability as far as in the minds of its intended audience, wrestling fans. To further this point other Columnists in the wrestling community read the reviews as well as post on the site. More information can be seen in this particular Google SearchNegroSuave 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep Are there any other websites out there that do VIDEO reviews on such a wide scale? I don't think so. Therefore this is unique, and therefore notable. And I also say give NegroSuave some time to get the sources. Curse of Fenric 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NegroSuave has had 1 year to get sources and he didn't.BooyakaDell 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not been involved with the article anywhere near that long. This account has not even really been active that long. I am merely discussing the facts and adding them where they are neccessary and as a member of the Pro Wrestling project attempting to help a pro wrestling related article.NegroSuave 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NegroSuave has had 1 year to get sources and he didn't.BooyakaDell 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either get sources up now, or remove it. Once it hits AFD there is no option to 'give me more time' to get sources. There are many things in the world that are Unique but being unique does not make them inherently notable. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick search for Death Valley Driver puts the review site as the number one item on the list, even above any reference to the wrestling move bearing the same name. According to Alexa right here It has several thousand page views. I know that google and Alexa tests are not the be all end all but it is comparable to other sites with defined Notability. My main problem with the nomination is that from the time that it was first happened upon to when it was nominated was very quick. Not to mention the request to clarify which statements needed sourcing. As of this posting I am at work and cannot really acess many of the sites that would have the information you are looking for. NegroSuave 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only unique Google hits appear to be the website and this Wikipedia article. Any uniquely named website will show up as the first item on a search.
- Death Valley Driver is also the name of a wrestling move that has been used in Professional wrestling for well over a decade. It is listed as part of the list of wrestling moves in the encylopedia. As for unique non website hits there are several that are listed as the Review is linked to several sites dedicated to professional wrestling gossip and insider news. Smarkschoice, Slashwrestling, wrestlingdownloads, heck they are even cited one the National Wrestling Alliance news page right here , sited as a source for an about.com expert here spanish translation of a moves list published by DVDRhere Is there anything I am missing? NegroSuave 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are multiple reliable sources that cover this wrestling move non-trivially, then a separate article on it could be created, but that is not what the above article is about. (Also, the sources you mention do not meet that standard.) —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think due to the nature of the wrestling business it is hard to discern what is fact and what is fiction leading to difficulties in getting verifiable sources. That being said being recognized by the NWA as a source for match reviews and the like, I believe that is about as good as we are going to get. I can attempt to pull up the archive.org of Lance Storm's website where his column appears. Outside of that seeing as the fanzine would only appear as a wrestling interest item, which is already in and of it self a niche group that doesn't have the mainstream appeal of many other types of entertainment. With my shaky sources I have pulled together an entire grouping of people who are indeed interested in this newsletter and have trusted its opinions. I am not really an editor of this article, I've only done a few reverts here and there since I am not familiar with the actual newsletter and such. All I can offer is google searches. However I do think this AFD is lacking influence from the editors of Pro Wrestling Articles, that have a better grasp of the nuances of the newsletter and could probably speak on it better than I can. NegroSuave 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are multiple reliable sources that cover this wrestling move non-trivially, then a separate article on it could be created, but that is not what the above article is about. (Also, the sources you mention do not meet that standard.) —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Death Valley Driver is also the name of a wrestling move that has been used in Professional wrestling for well over a decade. It is listed as part of the list of wrestling moves in the encylopedia. As for unique non website hits there are several that are listed as the Review is linked to several sites dedicated to professional wrestling gossip and insider news. Smarkschoice, Slashwrestling, wrestlingdownloads, heck they are even cited one the National Wrestling Alliance news page right here , sited as a source for an about.com expert here spanish translation of a moves list published by DVDRhere Is there anything I am missing? NegroSuave 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only unique Google hits appear to be the website and this Wikipedia article. Any uniquely named website will show up as the first item on a search.
- Comment A quick search for Death Valley Driver puts the review site as the number one item on the list, even above any reference to the wrestling move bearing the same name. According to Alexa right here It has several thousand page views. I know that google and Alexa tests are not the be all end all but it is comparable to other sites with defined Notability. My main problem with the nomination is that from the time that it was first happened upon to when it was nominated was very quick. Not to mention the request to clarify which statements needed sourcing. As of this posting I am at work and cannot really acess many of the sites that would have the information you are looking for. NegroSuave 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and per the comment above, Death Valley Driver needs an article or at least a redirect (I actually wanted to find out what it was yesterday and had no luck). Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Death Valley Driver is on the list of finishing manuvers most moves save for the most popular american wrestling moves do not have their own page.
- Comment Then there should be a redirect. Danny Lilithborne 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BOLD then Danny. Find the page that mentions the move and then create a redirect as necessary. This is a AfD for Death Valley Driver Video ReviewNegroSuave 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Death Valley Driver is on the list of finishing manuvers most moves save for the most popular american wrestling moves do not have their own page.
- Merge with the Death Valley Driver move article. I deeply suggest this could be put just as two or three lines in a triva section if possible. 86.20.53.195 17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has no reliable sources explaining notability as required by WP:WEB. Can't spot any claim towards WP:WEB whatsoever. Also fails WP:V and WP:RS; only sources offered are the site itself. Article is a year old so has had plenty of time to try to come up to speed with policy and guidelines. Weregerbil 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.