Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plane Ride from Hell

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 speedy delete. author request -- article withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Ride from Hell[edit]

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

Poorly sourced tabloidery, several BLP nightmares. Wrestling lore, not encyclopedic. LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this page has been deleted previously.LM2000 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under several different capitalization alternatives as well. [1] The only thing is that the current incarnation of the article appears to have more information than previous entries did, although I'll try to wade through the various edits to see if there's anything similar. Offhand the difference appears to be enough to where it might have to go through AfD again since it's not mostly the same article, although given how many times this has been deleted, there might be some sort of exception somewhere for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article's creator. I hadn't realised this article had existed and been deleted in the past, but looking at the past AfDs, I think this incarnation of the article succeeds where others do not. The first AfD centred around the basis that it was a rumour, didn't sound real, and was generally an urban myth. I believe I have adequately provided citations from multiple sources which negate this argument. The second AfD, much like this one, is concerned with BLP issues. I feel that I must disagree with OP for saying that it is poorly sourced; the claims made about particular wrestlers have been verified by multiple sources (from what I can tell, many more sources than were ever provided in the previous incarnations of this article) more than once. Given the existence of previous AfDs, I can understand the desire to delete this again; however, given how this was a controversial event that led to multiple wrestlers' contracts being ended at once, several lawsuits surfacing to bother the WWE, and the fact that this article seems to be much better sourced and written than (from what I can tell from past AfDs) previously deleted articles, I would have to stress that this article does (finally) have a place. — Richard BB 07:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with the previous AfD that I posted, WP:V is an issue. I maintain that this is poorly sourced. Bleacher Report is linked five different times, Bleacher Report is highly unreliable. Two YouTube videos are linked, the Youtube accounts affiliated with those videos are not the original creators of the content so those are not reliable sources. The BLP issues still stand until some actual reliable sources are found. I'm not even sure if enough reliable sources exist to cover WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. I also want to note that I nominated this before I knew of the other AfDs, when I found those I actually suggested a speedy delete.LM2000 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware that Bleacher Report isn't considered reliable. However, can you clarify what you mean by the accounts of YouTube videos not being the original creators? Surely the point is the content of the videos (in these cases, interviews with wrestlers who were there and their testimonials), not who uploaded it? — Richard BB 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that linking to copyrighted material is the issue here. Wikipedia policy has no blanket rule against linking to YouTube because sometimes copyright holders publish their own work on YouTube and their authenticity and be confirmed. These videos don't work because their content is most likely subject to copyright, and was not uploaded by the original creator, which is a violation of policy.LM2000 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Bleacher Report and YouTube, there's a source from Grantland... I'm not sure how reliable that source is to begin with but The Plane Ride From Hell is talked about briefly in a trivial mention and is not the subject this article. WP:GNG states that the subject needs to have had significant coverage by reliable sources. I've been googling this for awhile now and haven't come up with much.LM2000 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, urgently, as egregious WP:BLP violation. Consider salting the various capitalizations to prevent it being created yet again. This article contains numerous allegations of serious crimes committed by living persons and is not even close to being adequately sourced. I have removed everything from the article apart from the lead paragraph which doesn't name anybody. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what the creator of the latest version of the article says, it is not true that "the first AfD centred around the basis that it was a rumour, didn't sound real, and was generally an urban myth". The nominator referred to it as a "rumored" event, and said that he or she wasn't sure if it happened, but subsequent discussion accepted that it happened, and centred on the issue of notability. In fact, notability was the central issue in both the previous AfD discussions. The present article does have better sources than the previous versions, which is why I am not speedily deleting it as a repost of a previously AfD-deleted article (Speedy deletion criterion G4). Whether those sources are good enough to establish notability must be the issue here. At present, there are three references. (1) A YouTube video of one of the people in the incident talking about it. Never mind the issues with YouTube about copyright etc, this is not independent coverage. (2) A Bleacher Report page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide includes the Bleacher Report in a list headed "Unreliable sources - Avoid using these websites as sources". (3) A blog-like page on a web site called "PWInsider". I don't know much about PWInsider, but it seems that this page does not do much to establish notability. Since the other two sources are close to worthless as far as establishing notability is concerned, I have to be inclined towards delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of the very valid comments made here regarding BLP issues, I have requested speedy deletion as per CSD G7 (author requesting deletion/blanking) and have blanked the page. — Richard BB 14:34, 10 May 2013 (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.