Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)

WWE Capitol Punishment

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment
• Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)

WWE Capitol Punishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As the previous AfD, I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. Following previous AfD, it was redirected [1]. After some discussion with the closer User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011.05#WWE_Capitol_Punishment it was re-created, apparently because these two sources were enough to satisfy King of Hearts: [2] [3]. The first of those is some trivial coverage about a short advert for the event; the second is a transcript of the show during which the advert was shown. It's all advertising; there is simply no significant coverage, outside of that generated by the WWE who organize it - and it is unlikely there will be such coverage until the event occurs. The phrase currently included, that NBC Sports [..] cited this Wikipedia entry for the background of the event just shows; we're making this notable; it isn't notable yet.  Chzz  ►  07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Strikes as a over-zealous deletionist arguement for an event that will take place in less than 3 weeks time! If it doesn't happen, ironically it'll be even more noteworthy. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And in what way does it meet notability guidelines now?  Chzz  ►  08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Ive found many sources that could be added that make this notable--SteamIron 09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Great (if they're reliable sources) - will you be adding them to the article, or telling us what they are?  Chzz  ►  09:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources, as per nom. Those who are supporting keeping this article need, per WP:BURDEN to provide sources to back up this content. As far as I can see, there are none. Anthem 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This doesn't surprise me that an overzealous deletionist like you would honestly bring up another Nomination for deletion AGAIN even though WWE's been talking about this for like the last two weeks. There's a great thing called Google and it lists many sites covering this so yeah it's pretty significant Chzz.Voices in my Head WWE 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a couple of things going on in my thinking, but the main one is that by the time this discussion closes, the event will be only 9 days in the future. Even if you think that this won't be notable until it happens (debatable), what's the point of removing information from WP for 9 days? Redirecting this to List of WWE pay per view events will accomplish almost nothing. It will without question be notable after June 19, so unless you want to open the larger question of whether articles on individual wrestling PPV events should be deleted, this should be an autokeep. More broadly, there should be some compromise reached on how far in the future it's appropriate to create these articles. But this one's already been created, and keeping it does zero harm. Meelar (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A match has just been announced by WWE this conversation is over.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - obviously if those sources are mentioning it regardless of how it is (Even if it is advert), its them mentioning it and thus giving the event credibility. This would be like deleting every WWE or TNA ppv event just because the NY Times doesn't have an article on it. Thats the thing, these events never receive these type of attention unless its like WrestleMania. This problem has never come up until now, just because of the show being related to the US capital. #smh--Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy currently it does not satisfy my interpretation of the general notability guidelines, but the article is well enough written to bring back to mainspace if/when the event receives significant third party coverage. I removed the statement about NBC quoting this article, it is something of a circular reference.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep --Kumioko (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - These discussions about deleting articles on WWE PPVs which are only 2 weeks away are flat-out ridiculous. I think no-one argues about deleting articles which refer to events one or two months away, but some users have made this into their personal vendetta. Arguments provided by the likes of Chzz give a lifely testament to this and only confirm the assumption that Wiki is misused in large parts for self-promotion. Behind the shield of source credibility/reliability, they would not change their minds for anything in the world. Anyway, asking for other sources on wrestling PPVs outside the wrestling community (since sources like WWE, ticketmaster or host arena websites are said to be nonreliable) is to produce an almost conspiracy-like rationale behind the argument. If only sources like NY Times, LA Times, CNN or BBC were to be considered reliable, then half of the articles on, say, NBA, NFL, NHL wouldn't be reliable either. Long story short: I think there are enough reliable sources to safely predict that the PPV will indeed take place and, hence, the entry should be kept. Blocpark (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the WWE website, ticketmaster, or the area website are unreliable, I am sure they are entirely correct. Nobody is saying the event will not take place. Mere existence is not grounds for an article. For example, I exist, and there is no article about me. The issue is they are not independent of the PPV, which is the foundation of the general notability guidelines. From WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage, yes, reliable, yes, independent, no.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me how ticketmaster.com (which has absolutely NO affiliation with WWE or any sport in any shape or form) isn't considered a reliable source? WWE.com I get, VerizonCenter.com I sort of get, but how is Ticketmaster.com NOT considered reliable?--Voices in my Head WWE 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I said ticketmaster was not independent of the PPV. From WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. I assume ticketmaster is selling tickets to the event, thus they are affiliated, and not independent of the event.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty much over. The KEEP(s) outnumber the Delete(s) by one-thirds. And one of the dissents is an editor who many of us are certain has a personal vendetta to delete all wrestling related articles on Wikipedia.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly second this assumption/perception. (Hmm, I wonder whether all of the NASCAR articles are actually notable.) Blocpark (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I remind editors that this is not a vote, and suggest reading WP:DISCUSSAFD. It would be helpful if anyone saying "keep" could produce evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source", in accord with WP:N, instead of just saying I like it.  Chzz  ►  16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying, basically, is: "I remind self-promoting editors that they have always been acting like dictators and are expected to maintain this attitude." Also, your call for independent sources perfectly matches my earlier assessment that source credibility is often used as false pretenses for denying any wrestling-related articles a right to exist, since even reliable non-primary sources are regularly shot down. Hey, I suggest a new group on Wiki: "Association of Wikipedians Who Like Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Articles, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particular Articles, and That Does Indeed Mean They Are Deletionists". Blocpark (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

.....Oh snap....^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any comments pertaining to this article, rather than me?  Chzz  ►  03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A match has been announced and we've got moflippin third party source for it. This discussion is over you overzealous deletionist.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)