Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FMW 4th Anniversary Show

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 keep. ansh 666 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FMW 4th Anniversary Show

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

Nominated for failing our notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources are primary. I had originally tied this to another AfD with the same acronym but it was for a different wrestling organization and hence I have struck that. ~~The "parent" article went through AfD and consensus was delete. [[1]].~~ I would also like to include:

Otr500 said it best, at that AfD, "Does not meet WP:GNG per nominator. The issues: This article has ZERO references towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a WP:BLP or information about living persons. The lead there states, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.", with the added, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". How is notability established? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:ENT and WP:NSPORT are guidelines. This page in a nutshell on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" fails both of these guidelines, especially by not complying with more than one relevant policy. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of citation overkill to falsely present notability." Ifnord (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I found it non-notable. It was the biggest annual event of FMW and there is no specific reason to find it non-notable. It was the most significant event in the company's history and the sources have indicated it. If you still want to delete it after adding enough sources and working very hard then I shall restrain myself from wasting time in working hard to create articles in Wikipedia.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no specific reason to find it non-notable" Really? How about right now it doesn't seem to have coverage in reliable sources, which is the only form of notability wikipedia cares about.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such people who may want to get detailed information on the event which they may be unable to get on other websites will be convenient in getting information on FMW's flagship event at Wikipedia. A free encyclopedia, as it claims, must provide information on FMW's biggest yearly event. Maybe puroresu fans are looking for such information and they may find it helpful. This information is definitely not false or wrong. Sources provided in the article are accurate, not only in the FMW 4th Anniversary Show but also in FMW 5th Anniversary Show, FMW 6th Anniversary Show, FMW 7th Anniversary Show, FMW 8th Anniversary Show, FMW 9th Anniversary Show, FMW 10th Anniversary Show, FMW 11th Anniversary Show, and FMW 12th Anniversary Show. The information in these articles may be helpful for readers who want to read and research on these below mentioned articles. Thanks. --Mark Linton (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the deletion tag from these articles because I don't find them non-notable. If you still want to delete then you are admins and you have authority to do it. I cannot do anything about it and I don't need to give any explanation on it. I have already worked very hard and provided enough sources, which are true. If you will encourage me to expand these articles by removing "deletion tag" then I will provide more information and I think sources are enough to give information. If you do have any solid and suitable answer to my claims then do reply me on my talk page instead of deleting these articles and if you wanted to place "deletion tag" then you could have done it when I created these articles. Now, I can only request you, not to delete them after a lot of hard work and after a very long time. Thanks.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have to advertise or provide information on any event that is not notable, please see WP:IINFO. For guidelines on notability, please see WP:GNG. You have been creating large numbers of articles, either you're a big fan or a paid promoter of the event. Your zeal is commendable but this topic does not deserve articles in an encyclopedia. Additionally, do not remove any notices on pages nominated for deletion until the AfD is settled. Ifnord (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expanding or further contributing to these articles because I am damn sure that you are going to delete them anyway, so there is no use of working hard.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage you to read the page regarding AfD so you can understand the process. I have reformatted your input here to make it more readable. Ifnord (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only think I can see on that link which you mentioned is "Bad title" and nothing else.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I have been creating professional wrestling articles and contributing to them for the past one decade. You can check my history since fall 2007 and I am not new to creating and editing articles but it seems that my hardwork has not been paid off. I am not new to Wikipedia. I know how to create and edit articles and I have edited these FMW Anniversary Show articles in the same way as other professional wrestling events are covered in Wikipedia. There were other references of blogspot and wordpress as well but I did not enter them because you would not have considered them anyway. If you still want me to add them as references to the Anniversary Shows then I will add sources of blogspot and wordpress as well.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't considered valid sources. Again, your zeal is commendable. But, please, see WP:GNG for guidelines on notability. WP:WHYN explains why those policies exist and WP:RELIABLE explains what valid sources are.Ifnord (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know blogs are not valid sources that is why I did not added them. I have added their video links of YouTube which you may find useful to find detailed description of the FMW events. FMW was a popular company in Japan. It definitely was not on the calliber of New Japan or All Japan but had its own fanbase and a strong following and a lot of notability in the world. What made Hayabusa so famous despite having never worked for NJPW and AJPW. It was his time in FMW where he wrestled industry's greats and made a name for himself as one of the world's most popular wrestlers and his moves are still duplicated and adopted by many famous North American wrestlers. Have a look at Hardcore Holly, whose move Falcon Arrow was initially created by Hayabusa and it is so ironical that "falcon" is the English translation of the Japanese word "Hayabusa" and Falcon Arrow was named after Hayabusa's gimmick. Another finishing move was Phoenix Splash, which is also used by many famous North American wrestlers and was created and innovated by "Hayabusa".--Mark Linton (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned about WP:GNG, I have read the statement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." YouTube links of these FMW events, which I have listed in the external links of these articles and your main article's external links are reliable sources which are obviously independent of the subject and have coverage of the entire events. Ifnord, you can check the external links of these mentioned FMW Anniversary Show articles and you can check the videos mentioned in the external links and visit them. The YouTube links of these articles definitely meet Wikipedia's GNG policy.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on your WP:GNG policy which you have mentioned, there is a statement ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Now I don't need to give any more significant coverages and sources rather than the YouTube links of these FMW events. Do not forget that FMW was the pioneer of deathmatch wrestling in Japan, paving the way for Big Japan, IWA Japan, W*ING, FREEDOMS and others etc. They were not meeting the standard of New Japan or All Japan but they have their own fanbase and their own popularity. Video sources of YouTube are more than enough because YouTube is considered to be the most popular and most authentic online video streaming website on the Internet today.--Mark Linton (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will further contribute and expand these articles only after I get a response from you, Ifnord because there is no use of working hard on an article which I fear may be deleted by admins despite being provided many sources of notability.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand what independent means as a source. A YouTube video could be considered a reliable source... But only an independent source if it's a reliable publication talking about the subject. A video of the subject is in no way an independent source. It's actually very specific on this on WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are definitely large events that I do believe would meet WP:GNG the issue is that these are going to be mostly Japanese sources that will support it. FMW doesnt have the same international following as a NJPW does. I am not familiar enough with the language to search or recognize a GNG from not in Japanese. Perhaps someone who is more familiar can. - Galatz ^Talk 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nom - @Ifnord: Please strike out your original comment, as it is misleading to readers. You stated The "parent" article went through AfD and consensus was delete however Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling and FMW Anniversary Show are the parent articles. The AfD you mentioned is for Funk Masters of Wrestling, which was a tag team unrelated to this topic. I suggest you be careful when make such claims. - Galatz ^Talk 15:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, will do. Ifnord (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering these are Japanese events, maybe it would be good if someone who knows locate Japanese sources could help and try to find some.★Trekker (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - inappropriate bundling of nominations - According to the articles, attendances varied wildly between 4,000 and over 50,000 so it is completely unreasonable to bundle the shows together into one AFD. None of the WP:BUNDLE criteria are met. Renominate individual shows if necessary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The number of viewers of an event or pay-per-view is immaterial if it remains non-notable. A one-time event of no notability will get less attention over time, not more. See WP:SUSTAINED. Just because a football game has 50,000 people watching, would it pass the notability criteria for the attendance alone? No. Ifnord (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment. It's hard to believe that these articles are of the same noteworthy enough. Likely a lot of Japanese sources live out there, so, under these terms, if we could prove one of the articles pass WP:GNG then all of these articles should be passed as keep For that end, PWMania make a big deal out of old FMW shows Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making no !vote or comment on their actual notability. But such a drastic variation in attendance indicates that notability levels are guaranteed to be significantly different from one event to another. Thus they should absolutely not be bundled at AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I know we're treading on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but there must be sources! FMW was a major promotion in the 1990s and the anniversary shows are always a big deal. I would recommend closing these nominations and tagging the articles to give us time to fix this up. If there are no improvements then these should be renominated separately.LM2000 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the attendance alone makes it somewhat notable. The sourcing needs improved but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. McPhail (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, @LM2000, I agree with you to keep these articles and these articles shall be improved instead of being deleted. I have provided enough sources in this article and these sources are definitely not false. The details including venue, date and attendance records are almost similar in all these websites aka Pro Wrestling History, Cagematch and Wrestlingdata, so there is no use of considering it "vandalism", "non-notable" or "false". We cannot improve the sources and these articles until and unless the "deletion tag" is present because there is no use of working hard on them if these are going to get deleted, so we recommend to keep these articles.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article gets deleted and you think you could have sourced and improved it with more time, you can always ask the deleting admin to "userfy" the article, which means transplanting the deleted material to your own userspace where it can be worked on and potentially restored to mainspace. The admin is within their rights to refuse, of course. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom has changed his original criteria to criteria which is once again misleading. Ifnord is now using WP:SPORTCRIT which is inaccurate as this is not a sport. - Galatz ^Talk 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all individual articles into main FMW Anniversary Show article (including 1–3, which were left out of this AfD). Some of these individual shows may be notable, but not a single person who has commented so far has proven it (WP:MUSTBESOURCES). I've found a few trivial mentions: PWInsider and SLAM Wrestling, but certainly nothing that could be called significant coverage. Admittedly, I cannot read Japanese, so I'm aware that my research is limited. With that in mind, I propose merging all the individual events into the parent article so that the information is not lost, and so they can be spun back out into individual articles if/when proper sourcing is found. Nikki♥311 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~, Keep~~ Many people have tried to consider it a non-notable event but if you try to search further on the Internet, you will find more reliable sources. The primary source of FMW's own website has already provided detailed information on these events and multiple sources on the Internet can provide you information regarding these events. They were very notable significant events in professional wrestling history. Are you going to contact Atsushi Onita and people involved in these events? Many of the primary people involved like Eiji Ezaki, Shoichi Arai and Kodo Fuyuki are dead, so who are you going to ask?--Mark Linton (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can this source of a newspaper publication Tokyo Sports be useful to you as you were asking for "reliable sources" in newspapers, publications etc. I have found one and it is a Japanese source. You were looking for reliable Japanese sources of newspapers and publications and I have found one to prove its notability. I don't think you shall consider this source unreliable. I have added the source in FMW 4th Anniversary Show and FMW 5th Anniversary Show.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice. I've struck out your second vote. Thanks. Nikki♥311 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is pointless as it has been pointed out. There are reliable sources including FMW's own site as it has been pointed out. Beating a dead horse repeating what has been said over and over. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FMW's own site is a primary source and does not prove notability. Nikki♥311 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this event was not popular then your debate and deletion process has made it popular. This is a significant event and many sources have been given. OK, FMW is the primary source so it is not reliable, so a Tokyo Sports may be reliable to you which is in Japanese and is a newspaper publication. Internet coverage was not so common back in the 1990s as it is today, so it is difficult to find newspaper publications of the 1990s on the net today. I have tried to search Weekly Pro Wrestling on the Internet but Google has not given me any archives of the newspaper but the newspaper or magazine whatever it is, has definitely existed. FMW definitely existed and these events were significant and popular in FMW history. Kindly remove the deletion tag.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blatently obvious this is a major notable event. Probably even more RS sources available in Japanese. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no room for argument, Nikki♥311, since this event is a major notable event and if you want to add reliable sources then you can search on the Internet and if you browse in detail then you will find more and more sources. The FMW Anniversary Show was a very popular professional wrestling event of its era. I was planning on contributing and expanding to these articles but due to the fear of deletion tag, I have stepped back. If you encourage me and assure me that the article will not be deleted then I will consider editing it.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have commented above that the criteria for nomination above was flawed which the nominator fixed and gave additional false criteria, utilizing WP:SPORTCRIT which does not apply here. Right on that page it states clearly Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER.

Additionally as mentioned about I do not believe WP:BUNDLE criteria is met. There are 4 criteria that need to be met. The articles are clearly not a hoax, spam or manufactured products, therefore in order to qualify they need to be a "group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." They certainly dont have identical content and FMW 11th Anniversary Show is under 5,000 bytes and FMW 4th Anniversary Show is over 20,000 bytes. Clearly they don't have identical content.

Therefore the AfD should be procedurally closed and Ifnord should be warned to be more careful when nominating articles in the future, as misleading criteria and incorrect bundling can skew the results. - Galatz ^Talk 13:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, now, should I remove the deletion tag or will you remove it? And if the AFD is closed then should I continue improving the FMW Anniversary Show articles?--Mark Linton (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the closing admin should. - Galatz ^Talk 17:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the closing admin? Just close it, dear, so I may carry on with these articles.--Mark Linton (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in order to understand how the process works. - Galatz ^Talk 19:35, 18 January 2018 (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.