Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Australia

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 Draftify. Some of the Keep rationales have been rebutted here, especially on the quality of the sources, and one of them even suggests that the best plan would be to return the article to Draft for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Australia[edit]

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

Pro Wrestling Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contest speedy for gregarious and unsourced reasons that smack of original research and fan bias. Previously redirected as Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia with the redirect later deleted as the target was redirected as well. Makes no claim in the article to notability and relies too heavily on it's own website, Cage Match and Wrestling Data. Therefore is not notable and is certainly not the "biggest wrestling company in Sydney" judging by the lack of sources that confirm the contrary Addicted4517 (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honest question, do you know anything about professional wrestling? and are you Australian?.If the answer is no to both maybe you should stop trying to interfere on professional wrestling pages. However if you think the PWA article should be deleted then I would propose you delete any article in relation to Australian independent Professional Wrestling as none of them are notable. The list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia article features promotions who do not run shows nor are as notable as PWA. So my recommendation would be to remove that article for not being notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.34 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes and the remainder of this comment is entirely inappropriate as there is no understanding of policy, in particular about the difference between articles and lists like the list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. Your original research re PWA's notability is against WP policy. If you believe PWA is notable you must locate sources to prove this, and as I have already looked and there are not there would be no point. This is not the case for Riot City Wrestling as an example. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if we have articles for promotions that are less notable than this article that would be a case for deleting them not keeping this one.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One problem. All four links are promotional, especially the last two (with the first only being a trivial mention. There are also serious WP:INHERIT issues with the SMH article with all the mentions of WWE personnel, as well as similar but not as obvious issues with the Supanova article. It should noted with that link also that Supanova concentrated on the promotions that have a history of presenting shows at Supanova events, furthering the promotional issues. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the last link, I think the content in the other three links are very objective and neutral, and when there is content as you are calling promotional, it is always a quote from someone else, and it is correctly indicated as being so. I also could not identify the same INHERIT issues as you did; none of the arguments used as example in INHERIT apply here. There are multiple personnel involved, and it just confirms that the promotion is notable. Also, it seems INHERIT is written for cases where there is no "verifiable" sources stating notability, which is not the case here. Mathias (talk)
The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default. Your use of the link with the WWE wrestlers is an example of the following per WP:INHERIT; "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable" Granted this isn't a list, but the concept of "lots of famous people" is the same. The reality is that as WP:PROMO rules these sources out, there are indeed no verifiable sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An even bigger problem is that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which requires "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. So the first reference relies entirely on an interview with Ryan Eagles and has no "Independent Content". The next relies on information provided by a wrestler named Bonza and fails for the same reason. The next sees this organization included in a list but contains zero in-depth information as is required and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The final reference is arguably not a reliable source, is promotional, but also fails to provide any in-depth information and also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PWA is fundamentally different than a list, so I still do not see how WP:INHERIT applies here. I have not seen in the archives, anyone claiming that a company does not inherit notability from their multiple products, or a school does not inherit notability from their multiple students, and this seems naïve per WP:INHERIT. Unless the company or school had a single notable product or student, which is the only case covered by WP:INHERIT. PWA is also a wrestling school, and these are often associated to their "alumnis"; actually, in this sense PWA seems as notable or more notable than many schools out there (exemple: Laanila_Highschool, Arsakeio_Lyceum_of_Patras, Escola_Alegria_de_Saber, Merici_Academy).
If for a second we consider the "school" side of PWA, its notability is further strengtened. For example, notable people that performed for PWA:
Also many of these links talk about PWA events. "Rock lost the Pro Wrestling Australia heavyweight title to Caveman Ugg this summer. He had defeated Robbie Eagles for the strap back in June." These statements assert the notability of whom? The wrestler? The event? The promotion? The discussions in the archives show public opinion would say it supports the notability of all of them, though the event would be ruled out for not having other supporting sources. The wrestler and the promotion seems to have enough support, though.
There also seems to be a large disadvantage because the promotion does not sell physical products, but rather events made by people and attended by an agitated audience, which is why sources on the promotion will often talk about certain wrestlers, or interview them about their experience; if they sold inanimate products, nobody would be saying PWA inherits notability of them, as is happening here. If you see the "product" as being the wrestlers that appeared in the promotion's events, many of these products are notable, as shown in the links above. The history of the promotion is the history of these wrestlers that achieved fame after passing through PWA, just like the history of your usual company is hardly based on the evolution of its products; again another reason as to why WP:INHERIT makes no sense to me.
I agree with HighKing that the sources I gave are individually not as rich in content as we would need, but summing up the numerous information about PWA events and wrestlers out there, I cannot agree that PWA does not meet the notability standards commonly accepted here on Wikipedia. I disagree that the sources are PRIMARY, though. The authors are not directly involved with the promotion, and they do offer their own analysis of the subject. Seems to fit WP:SECONDARY more. WP:GNG seems to apply if considering that the set of sources and statements constitute significant coverage, as seems to be the case to me.
"The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default." seems like a convenient way to always make yourself right. In any case, I understand why one would see the sources as non-neutral, as it contains quotes from people. But quotes are quotes, and as long as they are clearly identified as being so, the content can remain neutral. In this respect, HighKing's arguments make sense, in that there is much less content if you remove all the quotes. But see the sources and arguments I gave above. Mathias (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand the restrictions of inherited notability as you just did it again through every single name you put there - indeed as you admitted ("makes no sense to me"). The claim to notability must be neutral and independent of any other subject. You are in effect promoting the school yourself by using those names. As WP:INHERIT makes clear, that is an argument avoid in an AfD and yet you are trying to make such a case. And no, they are primary sources because they are promotional - that is, the promotion had massive input to the sources to the degree that all neutrality and objectivity disappeared. Taking quotes from involved wrestlers is risky at best to back that up. To that end you need sources that avoid these factors entirely, and they don't exist as indicated below by High King. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to make the case for WP:INHERIT here, as your best argument involves frivolously calling the promotion article a WP:LIST. Without the list assumption, you are unable to point out the argument in WP:INHERIT that applies here, as none of them refer to inheritance from multiple entities, nor to cases where the relation to other objects is notable per itself. Mathias (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You listed notable wrestlers above in a manner that contradicts your claims entirely. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it's one of the oldest biggest company's in Australia and produced lot's of wrestlers who have competed All over The World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these claims have no sources whatsoever and should therefore be ignored, unless sources to prove them are provided. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very rude to say his vote should be "ignored". Are you a moderator here? Even if you are, that is going too far... Mathias (talk)
I was referring to his claims, not his vote. Please read what I said again if you wouldn't mind. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not really focusing too much on the word "vote" when I commented. It does not matter. It is impolite to say anything anyone said should be ignored. Unless of course you are a moderator and, as a consequence, fully knowledgeable of the norms and policies around here. This does not seem to be the case, though, now that I searched. In general, not only your statement above, you are more assertive than your actual position and status supports, especially considering the conflict of interest, resulting from your involvement in this deletion process. I read Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process, and the "closing administrator" is able to make the right call to give less weight or not (notice how it is more polite to put it like this) to the vote of Pidzz, without your intervention or comment. Ironically, what might be ignored here is your undue intervention. Mathias (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have failed to address my comment correctly. The focus was the claims, not the vote or the person. Your response here can be interpreted as willfully disruptive. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the fact that the article is totally refbombed with 58 sources, most are PRIMARY sources. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are all promotional and/or PRIMARY and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, I think the points you raised are very sound. I read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion and, if possible, wanted to know your opinion on merging the article on, for example, Professional wrestling in Australia. Mathias (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion would be "No", for what it's worth. None of the promotions that do have articles are mentioned there (and nor should they be as none have done anything notable despite the promotions themselves being so although I query - and have done for some time - Melbourne City Wrestling's). To merge would be inconsistent, and would also attract random redirects of promotions that could never be made into articles going forward. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MathArcher, it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article. Be aware that you can always request that the article is moved to drafts so that you might continue to work on it and it would preserve the editing history. On the surface, there is a case for merging the article with Professional wrestling in Australia and is seems logical to discuss professional franchises and promotions in that article but Addicted4517 makes the point that the article currently doesn't have anything to say on those. That doesn't mean that a new section couldn't be created or wouldn't be relevant. You might want to ask at that article's Talk page? You could also create a "List of wrestling promotions in Australia" article and describe each promotion in a short paragraph. HighKing++ 12:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks a lot for replying, HighKing. I will consider your suggestions, particularly the tlak page one. There already exists List_of_professional_wrestling_organisations_in_Australia, but the edit history suggests that Addicted owns it, so I do not intend to touch it. Also thanks for the cordiality. Mathias (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns anything on Wikipedia. My activity on that page is simply to maintain the established status quo with such lists that is "no entries that do not have articles on Wikipedia". That is not owning the page. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article should be kept as PWA is one of the leading promotions in Australia. I am working on reliable secondary sources to cover this article. But if anything at this stage, let's see it moved back to the draft space until it is sufficient for those involved to see it moved back to the main article space. Even last resort, as mentioned above, added to professional wrestling in Australia in a paragraph. There is a severe lack of coverage of Oceana professional wrestling in the notability essay which is a bias towards this region, something on which we should all work on changing. Let work together! Thank you. Jammo85 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable independent secondary sources. This has already been established. Sending it to draft is not an option as it has already been brought out of draft prematurely three times. That can not be allowed to happen again. The reason there is no coverage is quite simple. It is not notable. There are no sources that pass the requirements of this online encyclopedia. When there are no sources that pass all the required criteria, articles are deleted. That is just the way it is. This promotion is not notable. It is NOT "one of the leading promotions in Australia" because there are no independent reliable sources that recognise it as such. That being case, claiming that it is would be original research. The option of merging with Professional wrestling in Australia has already been addressed. There needs to be a local event that had major coverage for it to be included, and there has only been one (the one that is already there). Addicted4517 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all know your stance on this. Reliable independent and secondary sources should be available for this article in the near future. So seeing this article back in the draft space would be optimum over a deletion, because the page will just be re-created when these sources are available and I can predict what will happen. Jammo85 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my stance. It is fact. There are no reliable independent secondary sources. Your prediction is a violation of WP:CBALL and is therefore not relevant. It will not go back to draft because Pidzz will just put it back into the main space again without a review as he has done three times already. This promotion is not notable under the rules already noted. Your arguments fail multiple points in WP:ATA. WP:SOURCESEXIST, a version of WP:MERCY and a less blatant version of WP:ILIKEIT than Pidzz are the stand outs. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please see this source for a good history of the PWA's involvement sport in Australia: Kotaku. Also another from the Morning Herald, which certainly should count as a reliable secondary source: Sydney Morning Herald. And one more from ABC: ABC. It appears to me that there is enough to show independent notability.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Concertmusic: Both of the first two links are promotional and are therefore not independent and can not be used to prove notability as a result. The last link only makes a casual mention of PWA and concentrates on the female wrestlers and the subject of intergender wrestling. The article is also more focussed on Melbourne than Sydney as well. The issue with the lack of independent reliable sources remains as is. There are none. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - neither of the sources provided by Concertmusic could be considered "promotional" - the SMH and ABC are clearly sources that are independent of the organisation, particularly the former. This meets GNG, despite the state of the article (which is not an issue for AfD). Deus et lex (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex: It would appear that you did not read the ABC link. It makes one casual mention on this promotion. I was not referring to it as promotional. The two I was calling promotional were the Kokatu link and the SMH link. The SMH link is definitely promotional on the headline alone where it quotes the promotion itself. It follows this with two biased remarks without proof in the first paragraph alone ("Australia's top professional wrestlers" and "its grandest ever show") and then quotes from the wrestlers themselves before the clearly promotional quote at the end of the article. It does not matter that the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source normally. In this case they are promoting an event and it invalidates the article as independent. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a promotional article. The SMH is independent of the source. The fact that it talks about an event does not make it unreliable. A promotional article is one that is sponsored by the event or something like that. This does not fall in that category. Your statement is not correct. I think you need to accept that this article is covered by valid sources and stop trying to draw some spurious argument about sources to make a point that isn't there. Deus et lex (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, if it was something sourced from a media release, it would attribute something to a "spokesperson" or something like that. This article does not do that. Deus et lex (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a promotional article. It does not have to be paid for - that's WP:ADV. The language used in the article is clear. It is promoting the event, and is therefore not independent. Do not assume based on SMH's general reputation. The specific source is not reliable. Besides as High King pointed out above there needs to be at least two to pass WP:NCORP. Also, the quotes are effectively press releases. I think you need to accept that this article has no independent substantive reliable coverage and that my argument is not spurious. It is strong based in policy and a failure to recognise promotion when one sees it doesn't assist the opposed view. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really get frustrated when I have to engage with such nonsense arguments like this on AfDs (and there's some pretty bad arguments added on AfDs about sources out there). You are just making things up and reading something into a source that isn't there to argue a point that is soundly wrong. There is nothing in that article that suggests it is promotional. The SMH is a longstanding independent newspaper and has a good reputation for good journalism. It is an ordinary journalistic article. Deus et lex (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear here that you have failed to recognise a promotional article when you see one. I am not making things up. You are trying to place the SMH's reputation ahead of the individual article, and that is an error on your part. It is an ordinary journalistic article that promotes an event. A refusal to see this really frustrates me. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make the article promotional. If you say that article is promotional then any article that talks about an event or something happening would fall foul of that policy, meaning that the only articles possibly used for reliability are critical ones. That would rule out a whole swathe of articles that are validly used in countless other articles. Promotional articles have to do a lot more than just talk about that an event is happening. This is not one of them. Deus et lex (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to Draft - If this article is kept it will be the wrong decision even though consensus appears to be otherwise. Addicted's arguments can't be ignored; except for one. Returning it to draft. Jammo has claimed fresh sources and he should be given the chance to provide them and draft mode would be ideal for this. Addicted's concern over Pidzz restoring it again can be prevented by an administrator locking off the move option to prevent this. That way it can be independently reviewed once Jammo finishes his claimed work, but if he doesn't and leaves it for six months, Addicted will get his way anyway. I think this is the best solution for the prevailing situation. Wang.Wahine 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can a move be blocked without blocking other things as well? Addicted4517 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Wang.Wahine 05:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
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/Pro_Wrestling_Australia&oldid=1138256001"