Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCW Ultra

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. Changes that occurred during the debate, as well as editors switching positions more than most discussions, have made it impossible to parse a consensus here despite three relists. This close specifically allows for re-nomination immediately, to reset the discussion, should an editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PCW Ultra[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This professional wrestling promotion fails WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore also WP:PWPROM. The only sources which mentions subject in any detail are the results sources from Internet Wrestling Database, which according to WP:PW/RS is only reliable for results and not for establishing notability. SoCalUncensored is listed as "unproven" at WP:PW/RS. The remaining sources are all trivial mentions GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable promotion. Lack of sources talking about the subject, except for routine results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mann Mann (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on significant coverage of the promotion and its formation, structure, and management in multiple third-party reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], and more. This is in-depth coverage of the promotion, not just tangential mentions. A decent article could be written from these sources, so its WP:POTENTIAL should be considered when closing this AfD, as these sources negate any deletion arguments made above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given notable press of the promotion and several aspects such as its establishment, internal organization, and management across several reliable third-party sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. This is comprehensive coverage of the promotion and not just passing mentions. Given the significant coverage the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH and as a result also WP:PWPROM. These sources disprove deletion arguments stated prior. Additional articles can be published by some of these sources as well, so its WP:POTENTIAL should be taken into consideration when concluding this AfD. Lastly, the promotion features several notable professional wrestlers from mainstream promotions like WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and more; further validating its importance. Aceyuta77 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't believe the sources listed above focus on the subject of the article; rather, they all focus on individual people (Kevin Sullivan, Rob Van Dam, Great Muta, Tessa Blanchard, Ricky Steamboat, etc.) who are in some way tangentially connected to the subject promotion, while the lone SI article that does, does so in a "notebook" type article, buried about two-thirds of the way down, and is not mentioned in the headline. Additionally, the above argument from the creator of the article, "Lastly, the promotion features several notable professional wrestlers from mainstream promotions like WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and more; further validating its importance.", does not take into account the final point of WP:PW/NPROM, which is, Having a notable professional wrestler compete or hold a title does not make the organization inherently notable. (WP:INHERITORG). While I am sympathetic to the appeals of WP:POTENTIAL given the recent boom in non-WWE wrestling, the fact is that in 5 years of existence, they have not been the featured subject in any reliable sources as of now, and the promotions notability is still entirely dependent on who performs for it. Per WP:INHERITORG, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." I believe it is still WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. - GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sending to Draftspace could be a viable alternative? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to say that the Sports Illustrated articles are only tangentially related. While they discuss people involved with the company, they do so often in the sense of "This is my backstory and how it led to the creation of PCW Ultra" or "This is how other things I have done in the business are reflected in PCW Ultra". As I said above, they discuss the formation, philosophy, structure, and direction of PCW Ultra. And, of course, it doesn't matter whether the promotion title is in a headline or in the first paragraph. If there are three stories on a page, they are weighed on their own merits and relevance to a notability discussion, not on their placement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 8 additional reliable 3rd-party sources were presented in this discussion alone. PCW Ultra also has more press from several other credible wrestling sources. These sources include: Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report, Sportskeeda, Fightful: [9], [10], SoCal Uncensored, 411Mania, PWInsider.com [11] and more. A majority of their coverage has the promotion named in the headline. WP:INHERITORG, states that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. -- The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.” In this case, the promotion has several forms of reliable independent sources and hundreds of notable wrestlers associated with it. The critique that “the promotion's notability is still entirely dependent on who performs for it.” is unfair and can be argued against any wrestling promotion. PCW Ultra also meets all the criteria within WP:PW/NPROM.

Subject of multiple independent articles: Between this discussion and the page itself, there are nearly 70 forms of press/sources that cover the promotion and its events.

Promotes a large number of events annually: There are several annual events promoted. These events have thousands of fans in attendance.

Has actively been in business for several years: The promotion has been in business for several years, about 5. All Elite Wrestling for example has been in business for about 2 years.

Having a notable professional wrestler compete or hold a title does not make the organization inherently notable: This is written in reference to a notable individual appearing in a singular or one-off event. Fortunately, the promotion has hundreds of notable professional wrestlers who compete or hold titles regularly; 70 of which are mentioned within the promotions page alone and are supported by reliable 3rd-party sources.

- Aceyuta77 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep/stubify~~ I think Sports Illustrated covered this enough times to satisfy WP:GNG but the article is in horrid shape nonetheless. It's not unusual for a borderline-notable promotion to have their article bombarded with puffery from primary or unreliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Switching to delete. As noted in my keep !vote, this article is bombarded with puffery from primary or unreliable sources. Its creator is a WP:SPA that has only edited this article and an article for one of its champions. I think this subject itself is a borderline case with regards to notability, but WP:TNT needs to be invoked here. The article is a mess and almost none of it is salvageable. We've seen COI issues before with small independent promotions and shouldn't reward that kind of behavior.LM2000 (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heavily WP:PROMO based almost entirely on WP:ROUTINE. What's left seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not opposed to WP:TNT blowing it all up and seeing if the creator can come back with a much shorter page based on solid sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify With the opinions that it could be notable if the article wasn't so puffed up and given the potential mentioned above and the editor issues, why not draftify it and let it be worked on and submitted through AfD? This way it has to be proven notable, and well-written, prior to it going live. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted "Keep" above, but some good points have been raised here. The article, if kept, should be on potential alone, as it is currently long but contains no assertion of notability. The sources provided in the AfD appear to be the only claim to notability, so moving the article into Draft space isn't a bad idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been cleaned up to reduce anything that may be considered puffery. All press/sources within article such as Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report, and Sportskeeda is covered enough times to satisfy WP:GNG. The wording used within the article is not WP:PROMO as it is strictly factually reported information from reliable third-party sources or quotes directly from reliable third-party sources. Press covered satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH given that information within is backed by significant press/sources who are reliable and independent of promotion. Sources/press within the article are not be considered for deletion based WP:ROUTINE given that the guideline clearly explains that "routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability; especially given that this article is in regards to sports events and is significant enough to surpass/meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aceyuta77 (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your vote this time as you've already voted and can't do it again. The article is in even worse shape this time around as far as WP:PROMO violations go. Consider this: the article compares in length to Ring of Honor's article; that promotion has been around for 20 years and was the second biggest wrestling company in the US at one point. WP:ROUTINE coverage is stretched as far as it can go. As an example, Rob Van Dam talks about PCW in an interview with Sports Illustrated and there's an entire section about it. There are similar sections for Ricky Steamboat, Terry Funk and The Great Muta (you may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED). You've also uploaded several images from https://www.pcwultra.com/. If these aren't copyright violations then they're proof that there's a conflict of interest going on here.LM2000 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your feedback on the article. I went ahead and made more adjustments based on the concerns you raised. Although I do disagree with some of the things stated based on reasoning and proof above -- I am open to adjustments and made more. The section regarding Rob Van Dam, Ricky Steamboat, Terry Funk and The Great Muta in my opinion do not violate anything within WP:NOTINHERITED given that they are big moments within these individuals/Wrestling Hall of Famers careers that involve coming out of retirement/returning to a country or industry etc. More reasons were raised above as well. Regardless adjustments were made - thank you for your feedback. Aceyuta77 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted keep above due to potential and then stated that moving into draft space may be appropriate until the information from reliable sources was added. Given the recent additions to the article, I am satisfied that it meets GNG and should be kept. It would be nice to see the creation of PCW Ultra described a bit, as the article currently only says its formation was described in a Sports Illustrated article. Could a summary of the formation be included? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck my delete vote. The article has gone through at least two facelifts since it got to AfD, and while it has some problems I don't think deletion is the best route at this point. We can always revisit if the puffery returns and a COI is exposed.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per improvements made over the course of the discussion, and apparent editor interest in making further improvements. BD2412 T 03:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am willing to withdraw pending the delete !votes made before the improvements being struck. As per LM2000, if problems persist, we can come back in time. @HHH Pedrigree, Mann Mann, and Bob drobbs: -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) - Stricken; Comment made moot with additional delete !vote below. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The organization is not the main subject of the vast majority of the secondary sources. Those sources where the organization is the main subject consist of interviews and therefore lack sufficient independence to pass GNG; even if they are in major media publications like Sports Illustrated. Ultimately, the topic is nowhere close to passing WP:CORPDEPTH with the sources currently in the article. WP:REFBOMBing is not a convincing way to demonstrate notability. We need quality sources where PCW Ultra is the primary subject (not an event sponsored by them or an individual athlete but the organization itself), and in which the content of the article is independent (ie not based on an interview). As far as I can tell, no sources currently mentioned above or in the article match that criteria.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While some of the newly added information is fairly brief, there is more information (about the promotion itself) within the references that can be used to develop the article--discussion of inspiration, booking style and decisions, priorities, goals, and plans. To understand the article's WP:POTENTIAL, it is necessary to look beyond what is in the article at present and see to what extent it could be developed. There is also no rule that says the subject has to be the only topic covered in an article--even if it's seven paragraphs buried after a couple of unrelated stories, the coverage is there. There's no reason to discriminate based on how major secondary sources choose to format their articles, nor is there any reason that the information can't come from the promoters themselves. If Sports Illustrated talks to the owners, that's not a problem due to lack of independence, it's an assertion of notability that such a major source is discussing the details of how the promotion runs. SI isn't going to call up some fly-by-night promotion to report on them--PCW Ultra has obviously caught their eye. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GaryColemanFan. Please take the time to read policy at WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. WP:GNG is specific about sources demonstrating independence in order to prove notability. AFD rulings have historically not counted interviews, even in major media like The New York Times, towards GNG because they lack independence. Your interpretation is frankly not congruent with wikipedia policy as written. Further, the "significant coverage" description at WP:GNG is historically interpreted as sources where the topic is the primary subject. The sources in the article do not demonstrate significant coverage and therefore the topic fails GNG. Further, as a business this article has to meet a higher standard then GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. The topic is nowhere near meeting that criteria. Lastly, WP:POTENTIAL is an essay expressing an opinion, and is not policy. It has no authority nor relevance at AFD. GNG and CORPDEPTH are enforceable policies which are authoritative when determining AFD outcomes. . 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty condescending to direct at someone who has been around for years longer than you. Believe it or not, I am quite familiar with basic Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:N, so there is no need for your pretentious wikilinking. WP:INDEPENDENT says that the information should come from news reports. It says that commentary about a subject and a decision about whether it is worth covering should be made through editorial oversight from outside the subject (in this case, outside the organization). Therefore, Sports Illustrated, which has no affiliation with PCW Ultra, deciding that PCW Ultra is worthy of multiple reports demonstrates the notability of PCW Ultra. In other words, PCW Ultra writing about itself on its website or issuing a press release won't demonstrate notability, but a well-known source saying, "Hey, there's interesting stuff going on in PCW. Let's find out about it and discuss the creation and direction of the company" certainly does. Perhaps WP:POTENTIAL is an essay, but the same idea is also stated within WP:NEXIST, which states in bold: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It has been shown that the company has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which is exactly what is required to establish notability. There is nothing more to discuss. If you feel the need to keep talking, don't tag me. I know where the discussion is, but if you just want to shout about your misinterpretation of guidelines and policies, then we're done here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I’ll provide a source analysis tomorrow per policy at WP:CORPDEPTH. I patrol regularly at AFD so my take on policy is fairly normal among editors who comment frequently at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 04:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw the article, there are a few ideas. SoCal Uncensored is "unproven" as reliable source. PWPonderings is not a reliable source. ProWrestlingPost is not reliable. Cagematch doesn't work for notability. Why there is bold letters in the titles and the events? The event history section can be improve. It's just a section with event + wrestlers who appeared. Animal is dead, it's hard to be part of the promotion. BUT, looks like Fightfull and 411mania covered the events, so at some point, maybe it's notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2021 (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.