Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling
- 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 Consensus to delete. Some new users suggested that the number of youtube videos may establish notability. Those suggesting deletion rightly pointed out that this is not a reliable source to determine notability.
There was suggestion of userfication. This was not objected to but concerns were raised that even in user space an article needs to have a reasonable chance to meet the inclusion standards one day. Any user who feels they can bring this up to our inclusion standards based on what the organization is now, not what they may be one day may come to my talk page and ask me to restore it to their user space. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What Culture Pro Wrestling
- What Culture Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The promotion has held 2 shows, draw around 100 people. It does not meet the General Notability Guideline and presents nothing but self-published sources, except to verify the capacity of an arena - which does not aid the notability of the promotion. There have been thousands of wrestling promotions who've held 2-3 shows and then folded, this may develop into a notable promotion with time, but right now it's too soon. MPJ-DK 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This should be kept. Their YouTube channel is the second most subscribed wrestling channel only behind WWE. They have more subscribers than TNA the channel is so large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.183.184 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- A Reply to anon IP User:195.224.183.184 - see my comment below regarding number of views for a YouTube video - thanks This is not acceptable WP:RS---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - In case this is deleted, I'm saving it to my sandbox to preserve it and so it can be worked on. CrashUnderride 00:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or Userfy - references are only self published sources including at least one YouTube video and one merchandising page. Of course the text does mention that this organization has made YouTube videos. In any case, I can see no reliable sources available in the press or media in general. The only sources available in the "news" searches are self-published - fails WP:GNG and without a real company track record it fails WP:ORG. Also, per the nom, this article might be on Wikipedia WP:TOOSOON ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of any notability. All just self promotion. Velella Velella Talk 15:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and have never heard of them, which is enough for me. Association with a notable website isn't really enough. KaisaL (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- General note - If/when this article is deleted, I request the deleting admin copy the last version and bring it over to my sandbox so that we can continue working on it as a draft. Since I'm not an admin, I don't know if/when the article will go, therefore I myself can't be certain to get the last version. CrashUnderride 06:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is not objectionable; However, I think there's a risk here that the article will just be updated with wrestlers and storylines rather than improvements being made to actually assert the notability of the subject. Thus, please do not use your user space to simply host an article, per this section of the user page guidance and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm all for you improving the article in legitimate ways but as the sources don't seem to exist in the first place I'm not sure how you'll manage it. KaisaL (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This should be kept. 219.65.32.219 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why? AFD is not a vote. KaisaL (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- EDIT: This page should be kept because it is the biggest youtube channels based on wrestling on Youtube after WWE. The views of the episodes are consistently increasing every day. And, why would someone promote a youtube channel? This is the reason they don't have much viable sources. PS: I'm not a sockpuppet. Explained my vote. BAN ME IF YOU WANT. -_- 219.65.32.219 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why? AFD is not a vote. KaisaL (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This should be kept. Even though the sources are from self promoted pages, they are still verifiable and have more subscribers / watchers than any other wrestling related YouTube page with the exception of WWE, which in itself is notable. The main event of the first episode has already attracted over 180,000 viewers and continues to grow. They also have recognizable names in the wrestling industry attached to the promotion like Damien Sandow and Jay Lethal and have been reported on by many notable wrestling websites. Morph1138 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Morph1138 I would not rely on the number of views a video gets. It is possible to rig that number. Also there is the practice of paying a company that has "viewers" available for just this sort of thing and so on. This happens on social media as well - for example, I can pay to have a large number of followers on Twitter. I am not saying this is the case here, but we have no way to determine if the number of viewers is legit. Also, YouTube and number of viewers is not acceptable WP:Reliable Sourceing per WP:Notability---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- By the very nature of pro wrestling, famous wrestlers sometimes appear for small, non-notable promotions, often after they've been released by the majors. They'll take the pay packet, after all. So that really isn't a reliable indicator of notability, and this really is just as far away from being a relevant promotion as it gets right now, I'm afraid. (Also note that Morph1138 has created an account purely to !vote in this debate. It feels like canvassing has taken place.) KaisaL (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- @KaisaL: I have to agree with you. Referring to the above - notability is not inherited from notable persons, famous or not ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as too soon, it was founded only within the past few months, none of the coverage is convincing yet. Delete and restart at best when established, SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Based on other pages that have been marked for deletion yet managed to stay up I don't understand why. There are numerous pages that have been approved to stay on Wikipedia, some without any citations [1] (self published or otherwise). Also just because something is recent does not make it any less noteworthy. News happens every day and is added to articles on Wikipedia without waiting to see the lasting impact it will have, and as a wrestling fan this is no different. Further to that there are over 1,200 people a day on average looking up this Wiki after only two episodes, which says to me that it is something that people are interested in and is therefore a relevant entry. Heck, I learned how to use Wikipedia just to voice my opinion even though I've been registered for 8 years. Morph1138 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (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.