Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd 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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most citations self-referential, the remainder were trivial mentions. No evidence that the awards themselves have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) - "Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not satisfy this guideline." (WP:TRIVCOV). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the deletion review whic will be quoted here-in as follows: "The article in questioned violated many principles of WP:BLP by it's very nature, not to mention it had been marked as in need of citations and references on the majority of its points - the majority of which had been tagged as needing a citation for over 2 years. Others would be continuously added without the addition of references to accompany them. The notability is in serious question as having undue weight given to them by editors rather than the industry themselves being as promotions such as WWE, TNA and ROH do not actually acknowledge the granting of these awards, let alone their existence. Per the totality of that, I must question the pertinence of the article and it's assertion of notability beyond that of a niche publication. With that accounted for, most of the article was in violation of WP:OR per lack of sourcing given which reduced verifiability, if not rendering it impossible." ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 00:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Wrestling Observer. As posted by Vodello and myself, a large variety of sources cited the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards to describe a professional wrestler's accolades, therefore it must be of high significance in the world of pro wrestling. The first three sources focus primarily on professional wrestling, while the rest of the sources are primarily non-wrestling related.

PWTorch.com described Kenta Kobashi as "the greatest Japanese wrestler ever", and that "this statement... is not one made without support from within the industry", justifying this claim by citing Kobashi winning the WON's Wrestler of the Year award and Match of the Year award in 2003, 2004, 2005. [1]
SLAM! Wrestling cited Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year [2]
Wrestleview.com backed up Chris Jericho's "extensive" resume by citing that Jericho "won Feud of the Year, Match of the Year, Wrestler of the Year, and Best In Interviews in 2008 by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. He also won Best in Interviews in 2003. He also won Reader's Favorite Wrestler in 1999 as well as Most Underrated Wrestler in 1999 and 2000." [3]
Newsday described Chris Benoit as winning the Outstanding Wrestler of the Year and Wrestler of the Year awards
VH1 described Chris Jericho as "2009 Wrestler of the Year by the Wrestling Observer newsletter"[4]
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussed on January 2, 2004 whether or not Brock Lesnar should receive the Wrestling Observer Wrestler of the Year award for 2003.
The Montgomery Advertiser mentioned Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year
The Toronto Star referred to Jumbo Tsuruta as The Wrestling Observer's 1991 Wrestler of the Year, also citing the magazine as "highly respected".
On November 1, 1991, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Ric Flair as an eight-time winner of the Wrestler of the Year award.
The Democrat and Chronicle out of Rochester also refers to Misawa, describing him as Wrestling Observer's Wrestler of the Year in 1995, 1997, and 1999.
On December 30, 1988, The Chicago Sun-Times described Big Bubba Rogers, or the Big Bossman, as the Wrestling Observer's Most Improved Wrestler of 1987
The Sun (United Kingdom) described Bryan Danielson as four-time Most Outstanding Wrestler and five-time Best Technical Wrestler per the Wrestling Observer.[5]
The Montgomery Advertiser also mentioned Danielson's accolades above, as well as being owner of 2007's Match of the Year award.
UGO Networks also mentioned Danielson's Best Tech award.[6]
In the Philippine Star, they described MMA fighter Georges St. Pierre as "2008-2009 Most Outstanding Fighter by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter"[7]
Yahoo! Sports mentions Karo Parisyan vs Diego Sanchez was WON's 2006 MMA match of the year.[8]
A second article from Yahoo! Sports with another match of the year noted.[9]
Sports Illustrated also mentioned the awards. "Jackson's fight with Lindland placed seventh in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's voting for fight of the year. Henderson is known for a more exciting style than Lindland, and Saturday's high stakes clash could be a classic confrontation."[10]

Now that the importance of these awards in the professional wrestling realm has been established, I'd vouch for the article to be kept or at least, merged with a parent article of Wrestling Observer. Starship.paint (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable awards given by a long time newsletter in the wrestling industry, one even used by many promotions today and in the past as a means to focus on the industry. Editor Dave Meltzer is credited as a long time historian of wrestling by many in the business today, such as by Bret Hart in his autobiography "Hitman: My real life in the cartoon world of wrestling".--WillC 02:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability certainly established by mentions in numerous reliable sources. If the awards were non-notable, they wouldn't be mentioned as significant accomplishments when wrestlers are discussed in publications all around the world. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the staggering amount of references listed above from the DRV that show these awards have been deemed a notable measure of a professional wrestler's accomplishments since at least 1988. I firmly believe this list passes WP:LISTN, and should be kept. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the previous deletion review. There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These are not notable awards." If they're not notable awards, why have we found many reliable third-party sources independent from wrestling from as far back as 1988 citing these awards to describe a wrestler's accomplishments? For the fun of it? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVCOV ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong and you've already been told so by administrator User:Jclemens.[11] We can't ignore all of these references. You can, but I would expect others that haven't gotten emotional and overly personal over these discussions to keep their fingers out of their ears and realize these are in fact notable awards. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of their coverage in reliable sources is note worthy. I will not deny that. But I believe it to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself, not in a standalone article listing every single award ever won - something the very administrator which you've quoted mused upon themselves: "...though I wonder if it might not be brought back as a section of another article, if the individual notability of the awards are in question." Also, Suriel1981 was very much within his right to defend himself against claims of being called a "Deletionist" considering that was the accusation hurled upon the deletion of the page over on the talk page for WP:PW^{(Static Link)}. In addition, the very person who initiated the DRV called it a "stupid decision". So much for the principal of assuming good faith.... Perhaps, one should examine their own statement before accusing another of being "emotional" and taking something "overly personal over these discussions", lest they open themselves to Tu quoque. I'm also forced to once again inquire who these awards are important to? Are they deemed notable by the industry itself or by the select few sources above and a specific group of wrestling fans (who have seemingly been colloquially dubbed the "internet fans") who - in truth - appear to make up the minority of wrestling observers (No pun intended). I have personally never seen the very existence these awards acknowledged by wrestling promotions in-canon by any promotion (i.e.: TNA, WWE, or ROH). Mostly, these awards are covered by the Wrestling Observer and a few select outlets who also report on them, but not the industry itself (which seperates it largely from another group of awards such as the Emmys or the Oscars. In addition, while those few select mentions listed above can be cited (the majority of which can be readily seen by their links provide little more than a passing of the awards receipt whilst making no assertion of their importance), the litany of others relies largely upon a single source - many of which remain out of print to this day (to the best of my knowledge - please correct me if I am wrong on this point) which renders verifiability impossible in addition. Even if they were in print, it would still be largely attributed to only one source and one outlet which then calls into question whether or not excess weight was being given to the awards and the assertion of notability is being presented; in the previous DRV which restored the article to its present form and initiated this very AfD, it was stated (and re-enforced here) by Starship.paint (and others) that, "The Wrestling Observer's awards are considered the most (or second most, maybe Pro Wrestling Illustrated has a say) prestigious awards in pro wrestling." With the prior examples accounted for and with the evidence I have presented before, I must once again inquire, "By who?"? Simply stated, this article has to many issues. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 04:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You believe the contents of the article "to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself", yet you voted Delete instead of Merge? Hmm? And well, the awards are considered prestigious because when citing a wrestler's achievements, so many organizations (as I have provided above) choose to back the achievements up with these awards? Isn't there a level of prestige there? Starship.paint (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the form of a passing mention, yes. If the publication has it's own awards, I think that should be mentioned on it's main article. But I do not think such an award list deserves its own article when it's not notable enough to carry it. Because that's what it amounts to in every single source cited above. All of them follow the same pattern in mentioning that a person has been the recipient of an award, but none actually comment on the award or why it is prestigious which yet again - without evidence to the contrary - shows evidence of subjective reasoning and the assigning of undue weight on the part of persons and not the industry. Many organizations? What organizations? A few news organizations gave passing mentions in the form of "[subject] is the recipient of the such-and-such award, the such-and-such award, and the wrestling observer such-and-such award". Each and every one of them gives a passing in that form. No wrestling organization (even a minor independent and certainly none of the major ones) has been cited as even acknowledging the existence of these awards. Not a single one. I ask again, with everything on the table, why does this deserve it's own article, and will any of these concerns be addressed by anyone? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Deserves its own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11111 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. They'll just thump one of these policies in your face and it'll actually only serve to help them delete the article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional clarification required, per WP:JUSTAVOTE ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 03:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability clearly established in the given references.TheFBH (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't have a problem with all the material being on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter article, though that may make it very unwieldy. Either way, numerous other wrestling sources, including respected publications like PWTorch and non-specific sources like The Sun newspaper and Canadian Online Explorer, refer to the awards. Bret Hart and Mick Foley among others cite Dave Meltzer and the publication in their memoirs, making it of note. As for sources, this year's newsletter listed every winner in history of the still active awards, along with the top 3 for this year. Tony2Times (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It listed inactive award winners as well. Currently every single winner listed on the article is sourced.TheFBH (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per starship paint. This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry, and companies have taken note of them, and been influenced by them (eg, "Piggie James" storyline being dropped almost immediately after winning Most Disgusting Tactic, and winner of 5 or so awards Daniel Bryan showing up around the same time)Crisis.E X E 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry" - Yet again, by who? While we're on the point, what's your source that WWE was influenced by the above cited example? That sounds a lot like subjective reasoning based on coincidence. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As reflected in talk page discussion on multiple articles and the large number of vandalism-related edits to this article, Dave Meltzer and the cult of personality surrounding him has been a point of contention. This has long been the case; in fact, it has existed long before the advent of the self-proclaimed/self-styled "Internet Wrestling Community." Someone decided to take a cheap shot at me for pointing this out, despite the fact that prime evidence of this exists mostly in the still-deleted talk page of this article. Two other concerns: I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation. Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer? The other concern was due to undue weight because the present-day major wrestling promotions in the United States don't acknowledge these awards. Never mind that this is the Internet, after all, which is read by and accessible to the entire world, and presenting an American-centric view represents undue weight in and of itself. Since I don't read Japanese-language text (as I suspect would be the case with most people reading this), has anyone investigated whether publications such as Baseball Magazine Sha or Weekly Gong have referenced the awards, especially since Meltzer began traveling to Japan in the mid 1980s? Back to undue weight, a far more relevant example of undue weight is in filling untold numbers of pro wrestling-related articles with gratuitous references to WWE, TNA and ROH, even and especially when unwarranted, and ignoring proper historical perspective and/or proper worldwide perspective. Speaking of proper historical perspective, my primary complaint with the article has been that the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred. As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent" or whether these references made their way into print or onto the web due to Meltzer's journalistic connections.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent"" - That's an argument for deletion, not keeping.
"Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer?" - Er... I'm not going to list the policies that would violate, regardless of whether he's alive or not.
"I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation." - Here's a quote from WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
"the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred" - Isn't that another case for deletion? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It isn't. This is grasping at straws for unrelated policies. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. I suggest you study Wikipedia's policies a little more carefully. Particularly WP:AGF, as you've demonstrated little understanding of that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First they say read WP:AGF, then immediately follow it with a passive aggressive snipe. Classic. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Talk about taking WP:AGF, stomping a mudhole in it, and walking it dry (to loosely quote)... I have yet to see this so-called Anti-Meltzer rage that he speaks of. I wonder if RadioKAOS believes there is some sort of cabal working in WP:PW. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If at first you don't succeed, snipe, snipe the keep voters? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you so choose to take it that way, that is your prerogative. I'm personally waiting to see evidence of this cabal of Anti-Meltzer's he speaks of and has spoken of ever since this article was first nominated for deletion. Come to think of it, I'm personally waiting for anyone to address the legitimate concerns I raised here - twice; and that's in addition to raising the same concerns on the DRV where it went unanswered and continues to be unanswered here. Come to think of it, no one has even addressed the point made by the user who was under the IP:82.19.4.7 on the DRV (See the DRV for preceding context): "So ignore half of the analogy, industry awards which appear everywhere. Then do the same as above and ignore the common sense meaning of the analogy and make up your own to make a strawman. No one has said some random kid in walmart that's your construction (so if anyone is trying to derail the discussion it's those trying to build the strawmen arguments rather than actually trying to understand where the difference in opinion lies). If there are people who are notable enough to get coverage in third party reliable sources and all of them include in their bio that particular walmart certificate, that's the closer analogy to the situation here. "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage" - and that's the problem, everyone is asking you to show that coverage - i.e. coverage of the award where are the third party sources talking directly in detail about the awards (not lists of winners, not talking about people and noting they won the award, but coverage about the award itself)." Is there anyone who will address their concerns and my own? Anyone at all? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - this is a perfect example of new and better sources being found when the pressure is on. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2011 (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.