Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story

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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity project. It has won some awards, but they do not seem especially significant ones, and there is no reliable independent coverage. Also, one of a number of related vanity pages created by the same person, so seems worth some scrutiny at AfD regardless. Korruski^Talk 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is weak due to the film's target audience... but I will note though that for its genre, it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is still none-the-less, notability.... and as small-budget independent documetaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I must admit I'm not 100% sure on this one myself. However, I looked a bit more closely at the awards, and I have to say it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition. It is this that makes me question the worth of the awards, on their own, for demonstrating notability.--Korruski^Talk 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and I did not jump to "keep", as more research is needed, and awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the Tellys do not have quite the same industry coverage as the Academy Awards certainly, they do have some decent and sourcable history and coverage of their own.[1] I am okay with the Acolade Competition [2] for its own coverage,[3] and the Aegis Video & Film Production Awards [4] for its history.[5] But I'd love to find some actual coverage beyond the praise from the Dove Foundation. I'll grant it felt a little ironic when you wrote "it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition", as you could have easily been describing the Oscars or Golden Globes. But no matter which one you look at... Oscars, Golden Globes, Aegis, Accolades, Tellys, etc... the competition now-a-days is pretty stiff. I'd like to find some decent reviews to help me nudge to a keep or weak keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competition for Telly awards is anything but stiff. According to the article, "18 to 25 percent [of entries] receive the Bronze Telly Award". (That's somewhere between 2000 and 3000 films a year, more or less.) Zetawoof (ζ) 08:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The DVD appears to be available through Netflix [6] and as for independent reviews I found The notable School Library Journal [7] with the review located at the bottom of the page. Here is yet another independent review from Two Sheds [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.174.67 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have a look at the criteria at WP:FILMNOT. The minor awards and trivial coverage afforded this film clearly do not meet the high WP standards for film notability. Also be aware that this is part of a WP:WG of related articles created by a WP:SPA to proliferate WP:SPAM on the project. The other articles are also up for deletion. [9][10] In all three AfDs thus far, the only voice voting keep has come from an anonymous ISP that geolocates to the subject's hometown, thus perpetuating the WP:COI that led to the creation of the three articles in the first place. Qworty (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those other articles have their own problems certainly, but as they all now belong to Wikipedia, we discuss each on its own individual merits or flaws. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by how these articles "belong" to Wikipedia, but otherwise you're missing the point. It's not about the individual merit of each article. Qworty is suggesting that a person or persons with a conflict of interest have created this batch of articles and are trying to keep them on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure for now~~[see below] Unlike Crossen and his book, this might (and I say might) be notable via the awards. Some of you seem to have more energy in this direction so I'd like to hear more about what you've found (about the awards themselves especially i.e. are they merely "mutual admiration society" vanity awards?). EEng (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All film awards, from such as the Oscars (voted on by members of the not independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences themselves) to Golden Globes (voted on by the independent Hollywood Foreign Press Association), can all in some sense be seen as vanity and back-slapping mutual admiration (chuckle)... but we judge their notability through the coverage each has, as there has never been any other standard established to define what is a major award or how it might be itself notable.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote above that I was hoping for something more that just the Dove Foundation review... and abetted by the awards, the additional found reviews from School Library Journal [12] and Two Sheds [13] push it just over the edge for me for this independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no substantial coverage from secondary sources or national critics. As for the minor awards, WP:FILMNOT is pretty clear on this in a footnote: "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." So without satisfying the first criterion of substantial coverage, it's not notable enough for its own article. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Substantial" is not a criteria, "significant" is. "National critics" is not a criteria, only an attribute set to encourage the search for "significant" (not substantial) coverage. So to politely disagree with your statement, there IS significant coverage from secondary sources: the reviews from the Dove Foundation, the School Library Journal and Two Sheds. That's three. Guideline does not mandate there be dozens. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Dove Foundation, School Library Journal and Two Sheds aren't significant. Particularly Two Sheds. That's just some nickname of a dude who was given a DVD by Shawn Crossen and did a really short review. That's not significant at all. As for the School Library Journal, that's not significant either. Per WP:FILMNOT, trivial coverage is excluded: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide." The School Library Journal listing is a capsule review within a listing of school library materials. That leaves the non-profit Dove Foundation, but the site is primarily geared towards selling videos, so it's certainly not an objective, reliable source of film criticism. If there was one reliable source, then maybe the article would be notable, but there aren't any. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting in how Jtalledo simply sums up "Two Sheds" as a nickmane for some dude who was given a DVD to review. Crossen's DVD is about "professional wrestling", and that "some dude" has a very strong reputable website that has reviewed several other wrestling related products, his reviews get picked up by several hundred wrestling websites making the viewership over the internet pretty extensive. Oh, and by the way, Two Sheds is located in the United Kingdom. So Crossen's products have been noticed and/or covered worldwide. Crossen's book and DVD are not blockbuster releases, nor do they have studio budgets, and the genre and target audience is not widespread. So for you to assume that the only way to be "notable" is for his products to be reviewed by major media outlets such as the New York Times is being pretty selective. I can find countless other articles on wikipedia that do not meet this high of a standard as far as being considered notable yet they are not questioned at all. I also think its interesting in how you spin that Mr. Crossen just gave his DVD to Two Sheds to be reviewed, much like in how Paramount Pictures just gives their latest DVD release review copies to the New York Times or Entertainment Weekly for review purposes. But its all right for the big studios because they are dealing directly with a "notable" source, right? A "notable" source with whom they also happen to advertise with in those same publications? Hmmm, now that makes a nice marriage now doesn't it? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Jtalledo (though, trust me, I've been following this and related debates much more in-depth than is apparent here). EEng (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Keep~~' [Repeated recommendation from same IP] Disagree with Jtalledo (trust me, I have been following this even more than both of them). Jtalledo says that the Dove Foundation is not notable because its geared to primarily sell videos? Really? That's not what the Wikipedia page says about them here: The Dove Foundation - "The Dove Foundation is a registered United States non-profit organization based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, known for its activities of rating, reviewing and endorsing films, and for campaigning against the portrayal of sexual activity and violence in Hollywood films." And as for the School Library Journal - "School Library Journal is a monthly publication with articles and reviews for school and public librarians who work with young people." Hmmm, they both sound pretty notable and reputable to me. And if they don't count for the reviews and endorsements on Mr. Crossens material, then how could they possibly both be notable enough to each have their own wikipedia page right here on this very site? Now that is an interesting question now isn't it. As for the Dove Foundation, the Key word there is "Non-Profit" so for Jtalledo to claim their main objective is to "sell videos" he is really sounding very ignorant to the facts. And I should point out that The Dove Foundation never listed Crossen's material "for sale" on their site, only the endorsement. In the words of Lawrence O'Donnell - "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're NOT entitled to your own facts." You people have to STOP spinning everything to sound good for your point of view like some bad politician does on the campaign trail. The bottom line here is while the sources may be "weakly notable", they are in fact nevertheless, notable. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article on Dove Foundation goes on to say

It is also notable for its telemarketing and violation of the Missouri Do-Not-Call Implementation Act.....Dove's web site states that...Dove's non-profit status eliminates commercial pressure as a factor in its reviews. However, the Dove Foundation's association with Feature Films for Families raises doubts about their freedom from influence by profit motives.

This is from the very article you were quoting -- it's as if you're not setting yourself up for ridicule on purpose. I believed you when you said you were a newspaper reporter [14] but it's getting harder to believe -- for example, you've been participating in several of these discussions for about a week and you're still talking about "notable sources." Reliability, not notability, is the question applied to sources; notability is the question about the subject of the article. Please try to keep those two things straight. EEng (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you? It's called disagreeing with you. I simply disagree with your opinion on what is notable and what is not. Just because you say it is not, does not make it definitive. It's only your opinion. And whether you like it or not, while you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I'm sorry if you have a hard time believing me just because I happen to disagree with you. But fortunately we still have the right to disagree in this country and on this site. I believed you when you said to give wikipedia another chance, but now I am having second thoughts on believing you. While you bring up a moot point regarding The Dove Foundation's association with Feature Films for Families, you completely ignore my valid point for how they can be considered a "notable" organization on wikipedia, if the reviews they do are "not" notable as you are stating in this discussion. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're bringing up a separate issue that MichaelQSchmidt alluded to in a different context. Whether the Dove Foundation deserves an article on Wikipedia is not pertinent to this deletion discussion. Here's a related example: The National Enquirer and Weekly World News also have articles, but they aren't reliable sources for articles on news events. What is important is if The Dove Foundation a reliable source for this article that we're discussing. And since their website that is being used as a reference is focused on selling the product rather than objectively reviewing it, they're not a reliable source at all. The fact that they're non-profit has nothing to do with it. They still want to sell the product whether they profit from it or not, so obviously they have a conflict of interest.

And the fact that the mention in the School Library Journal is an example of trivial coverage in WP:FILMNOT also stands. TwoSheds is not a reliable source either. There are hundreds of wrestling websites and WP:PW/SG doesn't list them as a recommended resource. We're not here to argue about the processes by which studios give out films to review either.

And folks, might I suggest avoiding the personal attacks? I know that debates can get heated, but I take high offense to being called "ignorant", especially when I made no such attacks towards you. Thanks. :D --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Better Business Bureau, in its attempts to determine whether the Dove Foundation actually constitutes a charity and therefore deserves non-profit status, has this to say about stonewalling from the organization on this and other issues: "failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency. Without the requested information, the Alliance cannot determine if this charity adheres to the Standards for Charity Accountability" [15]. The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance attempts to ascertain which charities really are charities, rather than for-profit organizations, so that people can determine whether or not they'd care to make a donation. The relevance here is that Shawn Crossen is a vanity-press author, which means that he is willing to open his checkbook at any time and pay others in an attempt to purchase notability. Since we cannot determine how the Dove Foundation handles revenue flows, we have no idea if they are in the business of selling review space to authors who are willing to pay for attention. Since there is a huge cloud over this source, I think there are enough red flags for us not to consider it as WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the same ip has placed comments out of order and broken the header. I have moved them below.--Korruski^Talk 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP... The documentry was featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, I do believe the festival is the largest.The IFQ Independent Film Qourterly "Cannes Special Edition" Issue number 11 may 2006 page 48 features the NWF kids pro wrestling Documentary. I would think even being part of Cannes is big and then to be featured in a magazine covering Cannes has some merit.I searched on Wikipedia for the New York international Independent Film and Video Festival to see if they were on Wikipedia and they are. Mr. Crossen documentry won best sports documentry in 2005 at the screening. I would think that Wikipedia have standards and that is why this film festival has a page on Wikipedia. Gene 93K I do believe that the two festivals have merit and may shed some additional light on why the documentary should be on Wikipedia. We all have to take into consideration that this league was produced and marketed by kids. This was aired on cable television to a National audience, they had sold out arenas, that in itself is amazing. The two kids that were responsible for the birth of this Crossen and Lane in there time were pioneers of something that we may never see again. I also need to mention that this documentary is available for rental on Netflix, I would think Netflix has standards as well— 96.60.131.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No mention at online version, anyway, of IFQ Issue 11 [16]. Meanwhile, looked everywhere and can't find any link between Cannes and Crossen/Wrestling/Kids or anything else, in particular no mention at [17], nor at [18] that I can see. EEng (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it has screened at multiple festivals over several years, might we not assume good faith in offline content, specially as not all hardcopy sources reproduce themselves in their entirety when sharing their online archives? And after its 2005 win in New York as "Best Sports Documentary", it screened at NYIIFVF (Los Angeles) and won the 2006 ScreenCraft Award for “Best Documentary”... and it does have those Telly, Accolade, and Aegis Awards, as well as distribution. Not all awards are the Oscars, but these others have enough coverage themselves AS awards for them to be seen as "well-known and significant" enough to matter. Sure it's not a big budget studio promoted film franchise like Star Wars, but does every independent genre film have to be? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 8 February 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.