Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:21, 19 October 2011

Death Valley Driver Video Review

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Msquared3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you User:King of Hearts for your assistance. I wish to nominate this article as an article about a subject which is not Notable. View these guidelines at WP:N and WP:WEB. 411mania, another site about the wrestling subject, was deleted and had references in CNN and other publications. 99% of the sources in this article are other wrestling sites. Sources numbers 2, 4, and 7 are broken links and are about to be updated as such. Sources 5 and 9 make no mention of the site. Sources 6 and 12 fall under the exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available"). Those sources have no bearing. That leaves few sources of substance. The article has not changed substantially since it was deleted in 2006 for this reason.

Most importantly of all, I am concerned that this subject is no different than the hundreds of other wrestling sites. Wikipedia is not a directory as it says at WP:NOT..Msquared3 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being covered by other wrestling publications does make it notable. SOme at least have some independence of the topic. Even if I don't personally care for wrestling, I would like to see Wikipedia with good coverage of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it doesn't. Sources numbers 2, 4, and 7 are broken links and are about to be updated as such. Sources 5 and 9 make no mention of the site. Sources 6 and 12 fall under the exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available"). Those sources have no bearing. That leaves few sources of substance. Also, will add this info to the above explanation. It is more important to base arguments in Wikipedia policy than what a person "would like to see". - Msquared3 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have a decent amount of independent coverage to establish its own notability. And, as an update, the "broken" links were easily fixed with hardly any more effort than it took to tag them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, not quantity, matters. This fanzine has received passing mentions (examples of which are included above) in sources, most or all of which fall short of Wikipedia reliability standards (WP:RS) by a mile. Without reliable sources, the article does not meet WP:WEB. Reputable, established sources which contain coverage of this fanzine are needed.

The sites TheCubsFan.com (operated by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne), PWChronicle.com (operated by professional wrestling fan John Philapavage), and Alliance Wrestling (operated by professional wrestling fan Jay Cal, and even described as a blog on its Facebook page), are all blogs ran by fans of professional wrestling. Blogs fail to meet WP:RS in this case.

Can we get this debate re-listed? There are few people involved in this debate at the moment. - Msquared3 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to be notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quantity of sources seems fine. Please explain. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions and broken links is not notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Appears to be a bad faith vote, as looking at the article would have been sufficient to reveal that the "broken" links were fixed five days prior to this vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of checking in the last three minutes, two archive.org links don't work for me and one link goes to a video that appears not to play. I'm WP:AGF in this matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I owe an apology here. The links are fixed, but the Internet Archive Wayback Machine is down for the weekend. This will make it appear as though they are not working until Monday. Sorry for jumping to conclusions here. On the bright side, this helps illustrate that your concern has already been rectified. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:10, 9 October 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete as I'm not convinced WP:WEB criteria 1 ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms" - emphasis my own) is met by the cited blogs and references by internet wrestling writers. It should also be noted that the IGN ref is from 2000 (i.e. before the time that Wikipedia came to regard IGN as reliable). As pointed out earlier in this AFD, quality of references is more important that quantity when assessing notability. Clearly criteria 2 and 3 of WP:WEB are not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:13, 12 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. There is a fairly large number of book sources as well, suggesting that there may be addtional offline coverage. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alpha Quadrant. Some of the sources in this article may not even be "third party." As stated, one source (The Cubs Fan) that is a blog is ran by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne. What has not yet been stated is that Joe Gagne is a poster on Death Valley Driver's message board. His profile is at http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=200. Similarly, Jay Cal, who is the operator of the Alliance-Wrestling.com blog which is used as a source in the article and is the author of the particular blog page being cited, is a poster on the message board as well: http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=3630. As a result of these two facts, beyond the sources not being reliable (they are blogs), there is also a question about how third party these bloggers are from the subject of this article.

As stated, most of the sources are not "reliable" by Wikipedia's standards. As stated as well, blogs (including the three that have been pointed out in above) are in no way "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, nor are:

1. radio shows operated by wrestling fans (the Blog Talk Radio source) 2. fan columns (The Oratory source is a site that revolves around wrestling fans sharing their self-published written creations with other fans, while its parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site) 3. self-described "fan site"s (see the bottom of the main page of DoubleDecekerBuses.org).

That leaves few sources (far from a "significant" amount). Many of the sources in the article have been associated on this page with descriptions classifying them as "unreliable." What is "reliable" about these blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s?

As it pertains to suggesting that "there may be addtional offline coverage," there is not more "offline coverage" as far as I know. If there is, I encourage you to add those sources to the article. However, speculation "that there may be additional coverage" does not have bearing on aspects of the article or afd like notability or reliability. Based on the sources that are in the article, there is a lot left to be established as far as notability and reliability. There are concerns about your argument that the sources in the article are "reliable" or that they are "third party." - Msquared3 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is persuasive evidence that the article should not be kept. I've altered my "neutral/delete" stance in light of this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic likely won't be covered extensively in reliable sources, yet some exist. Perhaps time for article improvements, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM would be more appropriate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Descricpive and heavily citated, very encyclopedic, I can not understand why this is continuously nominated for deletion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:41, 19 October 2011 edit Northamerica1000 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 707,589 edits + comment et al. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:21, 19 October 2011 edit undo Phoenix B 1of3 (talk \| contribs) 6,693 edits →‎Death Valley Driver Video Review: keep Next edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:

	*'''Comment''' - This topic likely won't be covered extensively in reliable sources, yet some exist. Perhaps time for article improvements, per [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM]] would be more appropriate. <small><font face="arial"><strong>[[User:Northamerica1000\|Northamerica1000]]</strong><sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000\|(talk)]]</sup></font></small> 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' - This topic likely won't be covered extensively in reliable sources, yet some exist. Perhaps time for article improvements, per [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM]] would be more appropriate. <small><font face="arial"><strong>[[User:Northamerica1000\|Northamerica1000]]</strong><sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000\|(talk)]]</sup></font></small> 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

			*'''Keep''' Descricpive and heavily citated, very encyclopedic, I can not understand why this is continuously nominated for deletion. – [[User: Phoenix B 1of3\|Phoenix B 1of3]] [[User talk: Phoenix B 1of3\|(talk)]] 18:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)