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 delete. v/r - TP 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Death Valley Driver Video Review (hereinafter referred to as DVDVR) fails both the general notability guideline and the secondary notability guideline WP:WEB. I have searched Google News Archive and Google Books as well as various subscription databases for sources that may establish the notability of DVDVR but to no avail. All sources in the article either are unreliable, are non-independent, or constitute trivial coverage.
Analyzing each source through the lens of the general notability guideline and WP:RELIABLE:
"The Oratory source is a site that revolves around wrestling fans sharing their self-published written creations with other fans and receiving feedback on their writing, while its parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site".
Former WWF European Champion, WCW World Cruiserweight Champion and former WCW World Hardcore Champion. Participant in the top 2 indy matches of the 90's as voted by deathvalleydriver.com. Was known as a star in the Carolinas long before he became a star in WCW. "The Innovation of Devastation" has created many new manuevers that wows the crowds including the "VerteBreaker" and the "Nightmare on Helms Street."
This source confers no notability whatsoever. Reliability is also in question.
Scott’s DVDVR “Best WCW Matches of the 1990s” Ballot – A Special Decade-Ending Keith Rant As WCW’s first decade of existance chugs to a pitiful conclusion and likely sale to the guy who wrecked it in the first place, the fine folks at Death Valley Driver Video Review have started the voting for the “Best WCW matches of the 90s” to remind us how awesome they could be when they wanted to.... ... Voting on the DVDVR Top WCW Matches poll will continue until January 8, at which point the winners will be announced there....
This source confers no notability whatsoever. Reliability is also in question.
Eddy Guerrero They spelled his name how? Yes, in Smackdown 2, it's spelled "Eddie." That is incorrect. "Eddy" is the spelling generally employed by Dean Rasmussen of the Death Valley Driver Video Review, whose opinion I consider to be authoritative.
This source confers no notability whatsoever. For what it's worth, this source would extend perhaps some notability to Rasmussen but none to DVDVR.
"The Death of WCW 5/2/2010 - Good Will Wrestling on Blog Talk Radio" is a discussion among "Will, Phil Schneider, Rob Naylor & Dean Rasmussen" about the downfall of WCW. The chances of this source discussing DVDVR is slim, and even if it does, it is not third-party since Rasmussen is involved in the conversation.
"The Mid South Wrestling Experience" is from another WordPress blog "operated by professional wrestling fan John Philapavage", according to Msquared3. This source is a blatant advertisement for DVDVR:
Recently a well known pro wrestling message board, The Death Valley Driver Video Review Message Board, produced a ten disk 150 match set after months of match suggestions, committee reviews, and nominations. The object of the set is to whittle it down to a top 100, and rank them via a ballot. If you participate you pay a fee for the cost of the disks, get the set, and watch some wrestling.... If you haven't guessed already, I jumped at the chance to participate. Except, I'm not just watching and ranking, I'm keeping a journal of the adventure, and you are coming with me. (my underlining)
The author of the blog post, John Philapavage, is promoting this competition from DVDVR. Reliability is also in question.
... I wasn't blown away with what I saw. My critiques I have passed along to Mr. Price, however, I love the idea. I've read some reviews, that have already been posted on web forums like the DeathValleyDriver.com and National Wrestling Alliance that have been very positive.
Regarding this source, Msquared 3 wrote:
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.
This source is both trivial and non-third-party.
Contemporary Black Biography: Profiles from the International Black Community (p. 35, ISBN0-7876-7922-4). Through Gale Virtual Reference Library, I searched this book for DVDVR but found no results.
You Should See Yourself: Jewish Identity in Postmodern American Culture (p. 271, ISBN0-8135-3845-9), accessed through Google Books, is a citation
In sum, this article should be deleted because of the lack of reliable sources that discuss DVDVR in detail, ultimately leading to failure of the general notability guideline and WP:WEB. Goodvac (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is getting ridiculous, there was just an AFD about a month ago that did not decide to delete. Nominating this again for deletion so soon is disruptive editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[no consensus] Close Endorsed. The nominator should read DGGs advice carefully. A renomination in a couple of weeks with a more closely focused nomination based on solidy policy grounds may well result in a better quality discussion that allows a clearer consensus to emerge.
It is not disruptive to renominate an article whose previous AfD was closed as no consensus. It is not disruptive to renominate an article where the DRV closer has given leave to renominate in a "couple of weeks". It is, however, disruptive to express a keep opinion without proper elaboration and rebuttal of the nomination. Participants at the previous AfD failed to provide sources that are significant and independent; you have failed to do so again. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:YOU'VEGOTTOBEKIDDINGME. I view this disruptive editing as a bad faith nomination. Sufficient sources exist in the article to establish notability. Let's close this in a hurry and block the offending editor if this persists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from DRV closer. This was endorsed because the previous discussion was defective through poor arguments. DRV specifically gave leave to relist this soon with a proper analysis of the source - which is what has happened here. There is no point throwing a hissy fit and demanding sanctions. Neither of your votes would be counted if I closed this AFD because they just assert arguments rather than provide any policy based reasoning for me to consider. If you want this to be kept you need to find better sources or demonstrate why the above analysis of the sourcing is wrong. Absent that, well.... SpartazHumbug! 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I've checked the sources and agree entirely with the nominator's assessment of them. They're all passing mentions or mere puffery, if they mention the subject at all. I see no substantial, independent coverage whatsoever. Agree with Spartaz that the first to keep votes are completely invalid; it is not disruptive to renominate when that's what the most recent DRV explicitly recommends. ReykYO! 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your feelings, and Spartaz's feelings, on my vote are completely irrelevant. It is a valid keep vote. The sources included in the article at present demonstrate sufficient notability. I'm not going to waste time arguing with a disruptive editor who is in blatant violation of WP:POINT. I don't need to go through comments line by line, only to have someone who is no better than a vandal say "I can't hear you because my fingers are in my ears". Keep your comments on other people's votes to yourselves. For years, "per nom", "notabile", and "non notabile" have been perfectly acceptable in AfDs. I'm going beyond that and saying that being mentioned in this many secondary sources definitely demonstrates the influence the site has in the professional wrestling world. If you don't like that, feel free to walk away from your computer and do something constructive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goodvac merely followed the recommendation of the last DRV, and did a thorough job of of analyzing the sources. Instead of responding to his arguments you've declared an obvious good-faith nomination disruptive and pointy. That's not on. In my opinion, your keep !vote consisted mostly of unwarranted attacks on the nominator- you only mentioned the actual article to say "sources are sufficient" with no supporting evidence. I also think it's highly hypocritical to go "Disruptive! Pointy! Vandal! Block him!" and then tell people not to comment on other peoples' votes when called on it. You seem to be taking this way too personally. Maybe instead of telling me to go away, it's you who could do with a cup of tea and a lie-down. ReykYO! 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was up to me, I'd delete for lacking sufficient notability. However, I appreciate that we are normally ridiculously soft on anything to do with pro wrestingly, so when you consider all the other crud we keep, maybe it looks more reasoning. But my overall opinion is that it ought to go. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AFD was last month.[1] It went to a deletion review which ended in endorsing the decision of the closing editor.[2] Now we have a 6th nomination for this article already? That's insanity. Should everyone just copy and paste their arguments last time over here again? DreamFocus 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the same guy is nominating it this time as last. You can't just keep trying until you get your way. You failed at the AFD last month, you failed to get your way at the deletion review, so now you are trying yet again. DreamFocus 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read what's written in the debates you contribute to Dreamfocus? The DRV was closed with leave to immediately relist because the previous discussion was so lacklustre so its not disruptive to list this again. Do you have anything to add that might actually address the deletion argument or are you simply going to kick the man and ignore the ball? I'm afraid that your contribution here completely fails to add any additional glitter to proceedings. SpartazHumbug! 16:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You always seem to favor deletion, finding an excuse to do so. Instead of admitting it was a valid close, you decided to tell him to do a repeat, then came here and voted delete. DreamFocus 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I was not the nominator of the previous AfD. (2) Spartaz did not vote in this AfD. (3) The last AfD ended in no consensus, so it's perfectly acceptable and logical to renominate to gain a clearer consensus. (4) How about you provide some sources that establish notability instead of railing about this being an improper renomination? Goodvac (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I saw Msquared3's name up top and I assumed he was doing it again. And no, it is not logical to decide that no consensus means repeat. And last AFD it was clearly established that many notable people in the industry did do interviews on this review site, and that wouldn't happen unless they were notable in this industry. DreamFocus 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not established. At both the AfD and the DRV, I noted that WP:WEB#No inherited notability applies. And you never responded. Goodvac (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond. My words were "Uh no, this is a different case. Any review media is notable for who they review. And that many famous people would not do interviews with the site, if they didn't consider it notable. They just do interviews with any random blog out there." The inherited rule means being related to someone famous doesn't make you notable. A political show would be notable if major elected officials were regularly interviewed on it, a game review site is notable if dozens of people in the industry did interviews on it, and a wrestling site is notable if a lot of notable wrestlers do interviews on it. You can't get that many people to show up at some random fan site. There are multiple ways to determine if something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for it, the guideline just some suggestions. DreamFocus 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The inherited guideline is not limited to biographies of relatives of notable people. WP:WEB, specifically for web content, clearly rules out inherited notability. And I quote again:
Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable.
Just because notable people were associated with DVDVR (by way of being interviewed) does not mean DVDVR is notable. Where has DVDVR itself "receive[d] notice"? Goodvac (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the next sentence of that says "For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." It means, obviously, when taken in proper context, if a famous person gets a website that doesn't make the website notable because of that. Having famous people interviewed there however, means the website has been shown to have attracted notice. DreamFocus 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is only an example ("For example"); it's not the only case of application. The guideline means the web content itself attracting notice from reliable sources, which famous people are not. All this boils down to is whether DVDVR meets the GNG, and it doesn't. Goodvac (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to meet the GNG to be notable. The secondary guidelines, or consensus in the individual AFDs has always been valid. DreamFocus 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying only the GNG can establish notability. The secondary guideline WP:WEB requires the "web content itself [to] receive notice" by reliable sources, suggesting that sources of the caliber used for the GNG are necessary. That isn't fulfilled here. Goodvac (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable." That is for the part dealing with it not inheriting notability because someone famous is there, unless it receive coverage for having that famous person there. You don't need coverage in reliable sources for it to exists, otherwise you'd use the GNG, and wouldn't need any secondary guidelines. DreamFocus 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Reyk nor I understand your above comment. Would you clarify? Goodvac (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts on the sources:
That "the Cubs Fan" is a wordpress thingy is unimportant. That it is a SPS is important (see http://www.thecubsfan.com/about/). So not reliable.
"http://oratory.rajah.com" is a bit less clear. It's long running and claims to have a staff ([3]. Seems sketchy. Let's call it unclear reliability.
I stopped after that as the other sources looked really weak. Can anyone provide sources that are reliable, or otherwise find flaw in the nom's analysis of the sources? For now, I'm weak delete. Weak only because I really hate seeing XfD number 9 and there is a (very weak) case to be made for notability. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the last AfD I !voted delete because several of the references didn't work and I assumed the notability rested on them. Now they do work I'm struggling to find notability in any of them. I have not analysed the book references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Death Valley Driver Video Review article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The sources fail WP:RS. In addition to sources which are not reliable, this article also contains sources which are not independent of the subject of the article. - Msquared3 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources TheCubsFan.com, PWChronicle.com, and Alliance Wrestling (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.
The Oratory's fan-written, self-published columns do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Oratory's parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site, indicating that its parent domain may also fall short of Wikipedia's reliability standards.
In addition to not being a reliable source, The Mid South Wrestling Experience source's mention of DVDVR falls under exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available").
DoubleDeckerBuses.org is a self-described "fan site" (see the bottom of the main page of DoubleDecekerBuses.org).
What is "reliable" about these blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s which seem to fall short of Wikipedia reliability standards (WP:RS) by a mile? - Msquared3 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic's notability has not been established by independent, reliable sources in the article. Folgertat (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. "References" are blogs, fansites, and other similarly nonreliable sources. Neutralitytalk 00:10, 16 December 2011 (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.