Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling

Add links
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 Stubify. There seems to be a strong consensus that what we have is not fit for purpose and a sense that the article is being used to exaggerate the importance of the subject. There is not quite a consensus to delete outright (I have ignored the SPAs) so I'm going to stubify this and ask that this be rewritten from the good sources only. After that we will be better placed to see if this article can stand up or not. If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF). Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling[edit]

Defiant Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling (in fact, it's the same promotion with other name). Most of the sources are from their own website (defiant wrestling or What Culture), their own youtube channel or Cagematch (which covers every wrestling event in the world). I don't see any third party sources enough to establish their notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to re-issue what I wrote on the talk page for this article. The notoriety of the article should really be argued over the following references, as the majority are primary, or just link the source.

"WCPW rebranding as Defiant Wrestling, Wade Barrett to be new GM". WON/F4W - WWE news, Pro Wrestling News, WWE Results, UFC News, UFC results. 2017-09-30. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
"Adam Pacitti's Big Announcement: WCPW Is Born". Huffington Post. 2016-05-26. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
"WhatCulture, WhatExodus? C5 Is The New WCPW?". Last Word on Pro Wrestling. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
"What Culture Wrestling Departees File Docs For New Business Venture". Pro Wrestling Sheet. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
Greer, Jamie (30 September 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling". LWPS. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
Jarrel, Tim (October 1, 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling3". Pro Wrestling Unlimited. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Hamilton, Ian (October 20, 2017). "Last episode of Loaded". Back Body Drop. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
Currier, Joseph (2017-08-26). "Daily Update: Mayweather vs. McGregor, Charlotte, WCPW World Cup". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, take a look on the Pro wrestling MoS, reliable sources. Last Word on Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Sheet, LWPS, Pro Wrestling Unlimited, Back Body Drop (a blog) aren't reliable. For the entire article we just have 3 sources. (one of them, a small note about the world wrestling cup). As I said, 99% of the sources aren' reliable or are from their websites. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I didn't look at the list, but I deleted all other references that are clearly primary or ones that I knew didn't count. I have been leaning Delete, but with how exceedingly long the article is, and the sheer amount of references that are to be ignored are overwhelming. The question is, would a small article with those three sources be sufficient, or is the article doomed without more third party references. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found these

Not sure if that's enough but they did get in some news for the YoutTube stuff. Again, it's not great.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. -- TheCorageone1Connect 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep No delete, the article as reliable sources. - RigaPietrev12User talk:RigaPietrev12 comment added 15:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — RigaPietrev12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep The article as reliable sources and has a very good writting - Spinarok15 comment added 16:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Spinarok15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • These three users hasn't previous editions. Also, they don't have arguments. Looks like someone is cheating. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, maybe, stub. WhatCulture is so notable it is a red link and yet their in-house wresting YouTube channel makes yet another attempt to grapple its way into Wikipedia. This has 68 supposed "references". 18 are YouTube videos and should be ignored entirely when assessing notability. Others are inside sources of various sorts, which again convey no notability. There are also blogs and fansites. Then we have some more independent ones that are OK for verifying content but convey no notability as they try to cover everything. (I believe Cagematch falls into this category.) Finally we do have a little that merits consideration. The Huffington Post article is on topic and goes some of the way but it is not "significant coverage by reliable sources" in itself. The pastemagazine.com article looked promising too but that fails to even mention the subject of this article (under any of its names). That seems to be as good as it gets. At the other end of the spectrum we get references so far off topic (e.g. residentadvisor.net, which doesn't even mention the topic here, never mind support the claim that 100 people attended a WCPW event at all) that one has to wonder if they are only here to artificially bulk up the numbers as if quantity can make up for a lack of quality.
There is also some spin going on here. Despite the clear desire to put in as many "references" as possible, nobody found room for real RS coverage of the genuine (albeit not exactly earth-shattering) related controversy here:
If people would prefer to pass over that matter in silence then I'd be prepared to see Blampied omitted entirely (as he is not the subject of the article or particularly notable in his own right) but I don't think that he can be mentioned omitting the one thing he is actually slightly notable for in connection with this subject.
If this is to be kept at all it needs to have all the nonsense stripped out. The unreferenced tables need to go. The "referenced" ones probably need to go too, being fancruft and trivia. The bracket diagrams? I mean, I feel sorry for whoever clearly spent a lot of time to make nice diagrams (and by all means publish it somewhere else to avoid wasting it entirely) but I don't see it having a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for minor sports stats. Once stripped down to just what RS sources support it is just about possible that there could be a valid stub here but I remain to be convinced. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, the Blampied scandal was discovered after he left the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I wasn't sure if that was the case or whether it was related his leaving and it became public later. Either way, it pertains to his time there and it is pretty much the only thing he has much RS coverage for in connection to this subject. Having him in the article invites that elephant into the room. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah WCPW shills seem to think that wikipedia is filled with easily fooled people. Same thing has happened before in WhatCulture related AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found two more Crave articles here and here. Still, not sure if that helpes much.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article is a huge mess, however in between the mess there is enough to make it pass WP:GNG. The article obviously needs to be cleaned up, but its does pass GNG. - GalatzTalk 20:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you find the notability? Only a few reliable sources talk about the promotion, this is not significant coverage by reliable sources. Most of them are about YouTube policy and how affects WCPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @HHH Pedrigree: I have participated in many AfD. For the most part, I have seen across these, if there are 3 separate RS that have articles on the actual item itself, not a passing motion, that this is enough to pass GNG. As your comments have indicated, there have been a few RS that have written about it. Therefore I would conclude that this is sufficient to meet GNG. Per WP:CORP's nutshell An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no disputing that it has received some level of coverage as you stated above, the question becomes what qualifies as significant. In my opinion the article shows enough sources to meet this. - GalatzTalk 23:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make a point here that I have no real want either way in this discussion, but the sheer amount of shills are making the discussion very easy to be against the article. I think I would be a lot more on board if WhatCulture itself could be proven to meet GNG; as surely the parent company should inherit notability from it's subordinates. A lot of the issue here, is that there are very few proven media sites that acknowledge Defiant as a brand, but word of mouth is mostly why it is so well known. I'd like to say, irregardless of the result of this vote, a copy should be stored to be worked on, should the AfD discussion end in a delete vote. All it really needs is one or two news sites to have a mention of it, and everything is fine. As of right now, it all screams self-hype.
    However, if the article does get accepted, I feel as though work needs to be done to shorten it, as right now, there is far too much information in it for a simple promotion article. Right now, it's around one and a half times the size of the Ring of Honor article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because the article includes History, 5 championships, roster, list of events and tournaments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lee's point about WhatCulture being a red link is a good one. If that was found to be notable (which remains to be demonstrated) then having an article with a section in it for the wrestling promotions would be acceptable so long as it wasn't overdone and fell foul of WP:COATRACK (So no detailed fancruft coverage!). I'm less keen on the idea of making a draft because that was done with the WCPW articles and all it accomplished was to encourage people to waste their time working on drafts with very little hope of success. Of course, if anybody wanted a copy in order to publish it on a fan wiki somewhere then, subject to licence compatibility, that would be fine. In fact, that is what I recommend the fans to do. If they make their own fan wiki then they can do whatever they like without them bothering us or us bothering them. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is a mess, but it should be kept and re-edited because, it can have some unreliable sources but it as some reliable sources such as PWI Insider per example and it featured important wrestler such as Jay Lethal, Kurt Angle, Noam Dar, so for me is a keep. --TheUs3r12 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with everything DanielRigal said. There's a tendency to treat every little indy fed like they're WWE and get into the intricate details of their championships and tournaments. We shouldn't! If they're covered in reliable sources then we should cover them, we should not if we have to rely heavily on primary sources. I thought Progress Wrestling was the worst offender but the fact that we've deleted this article multiple times may give it an advantage. We could trim all the fat and leave a stub in place but I'm not sure that's beneficial. I also don't care which wrestlers have wrestled there, that's WP:NOTINHERITED. I would have suggested a merge to WhatCulture but that can't happen for obvious reasons.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't feel the nominator's points (in the original nomination and in response to other comments) have been convincingly countered and LM2000 correctly states that notability is not inherited from some of the well-known independent wrestlers who have worked for the company. The Wrestling Observer and PWInsider have printed information about the group but part of their function is to carry as many results from as many shows as possible so simply having shows mentioned in both publications is no proof of notability. I'm also troubled by the sheer volume of single-purpose accounts associated with this article and What Culture Pro Wrestling - there's no real way of knowing if they're passionate fans or spammers working for the group itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the end it doesn't matter what these shills are, they're not coming with convincing arguments either way.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the past WCPW articles I have had difficulty telling fans from spammers. There is also a middle possibility which is that some are fans being canvassed somewhere else and sent here without knowing about Wikipedia. We should not bite their heads off unless we see clear signs of deliberate sockpuppetry or other abuses. As you say, if other people could present a convincing Keep argument then this wouldn't matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability is not inherited from the notable wrestlers who have worked for the company, and there's nothing better here. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- DW often gets some notable wrestlers (e.g Kurt Angle) to wrestle for their brand. Meanwhile they don't get that much attention but still get some all the same. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED) from its wrestlers. Any company could book big name wrestlers as long as they are willing to pay their booking fees. And you can't just say the company gets attention, you have to prove the attention is enough to meet guidelines. Nikki♥311 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see that there is still some back and forth reverting and reinstating the strikethrough on the SPA !votes. I don't see the point to this. Maybe we should let them stay, so long as the critical comments beneath are also allowed to stay, and let the closing admin decide what they are worth. It is not like they are likely to be mistaken for anything other than what they are and we want people to see that we gave the Keep side a fair hearing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defiant_Wrestling&oldid=1136739599"