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. Lack of evidence for notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Byte This![edit]

WWE Byte This! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the webcast. Prod disputed with the claim that notable things happened on the webcast, which whether that's true or not there need to be reliable third-party sources. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — RoninBK _{T C} 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Weekly part of WWE Programing. Had several notable programs and guests. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the reliable sources that attest to the notability of the webcast are...what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its original research to deem which episodes are "notable" and which are not. If you remove that section, there wont be much left. I'd suggest a merge+redirect Corpx (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WWE's official website states it is "on hiatus" and therefore still may return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) — 96.233.64.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Once again...RELIABLE SOURCES ARE REQUIRED. Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be WP:CIVIL please. All-caps are often considered shouting, and highly unnecessary. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently a little shouting is necessary, since WP:RS doesn't seem to be getting through using my indoor voice. Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If WP:RS is the problem, why is deletion the solution? The article was tagged for additional citations for verification some time in December 2007. Are you that impatient for the citations to be coming through? Considering that there are articles on wikipedia that have been tagged for citations since 2005, I reckon you're being quite hasty with your trigger-happy approach. There are a lot of wrestling related websites on the internet. I'm sure someone somewhere can find some reliable references on the notability of those interview segments. Just give it some time. Keep. --Bardin (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:N are the problems. That some other article may or may not have a reference tag is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's quite relevant. WWE's official website, which I would call a reliable source, states it is on hiatus. There's no reason for the article itself to be deleted. Should it be cleaned up? Absolutely. It's strange how you're on a crusade to get an article which can easily be cleaned up deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • WWE's official website is not a reliable source for the article because it is not independent of the subject of the article. And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making false accusations about me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Being a primary source as WWE's offical website is does not mean it is unreliable. Of course secondary sources are prefered, but that does not mean we dismiss everything from the primary source just because it is closely associated with the site. — Save_Us † 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It does not mean that it is unreliable, but it does mean that Wikipedia has special restrictions as to how it can be used. According to WP:V, primary sources can be used for certain situations, but the Notability guideline requires that secondary sources be used to establish notability. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hence why I said "Of course secondary sources are prefered". — Save_Us † 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The point is not whether the show is coming back or not, it is whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. WWE.com is a primary source, so it doesn't prove the notability of the subject matter as much as a third party news source would. I've done a lot of searching in the past couple of days, and I couldn't find one reliable third party source, not even for the whole Lita/Matt Hardy episode, which I was sure would have been covered by someone. Some of the unreliable dirt-sheet type sites mention the web show, but nothing good enough to prove notability. Although, I won't object to future recreation when these issues are addressed. Nikki311 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--There are several news stories in LexisNexis that cover the Byte This webcasts; also two hits on Google books. Somebody put a lot of work into this page and it is informative and passes the notability test. It needs better cites, not deletion. --Wageless (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book "Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of ECW" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 229 of a 261-page book."Tommy Dreamer, on an edition of the WWE Internet radio show Byte This, said the Homecoming crew was leaching off ECW's name, which they did not own." The book "World Wrestling Insanity: The Decline And Fall of a Family Empire" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 83 of a 235-page book. "In her fourth-quarter conference call, shortly after Bill's Byte This! appearance, WWE CEO Linda McMahon called Bill a 'disappointment.'" These would be textbook examples of trivial refernces that do not establish notability (see note 3 in particular). I have no access to Lexis-Nexis but if the "sources" are in any way similar to these book "sources" then they do nothing to establish notability either. The WP:EFFORT that someone put into the article is not a valid argument for keeping it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you're right Otto that all the mainstream press and published book mentions are brief, which is why I noted them here on this page rather than incorporating them into the actual article. I have now included a quote from a press release in Business Wire because it's dated 1998, showing how early the webcast was produced, and I've changed the date in the chart. (I should add that there are other books, e.g., Scott Keith's Wrestling's One Ring Circus and Nicholas Sammond's Steel Chair to the Head--nice title, don't you agree?--that specifically mention Byte This!, as does Vince Russo's memoir Forgiven and Steve Austin's memoir The Stone Cold Truth. All these are to be found on Google books.) The notability of the webcast (called a "netcast" early on) is that it is, judging by these cites, an important source for the history of WWE, and that it was an early and significant milestone in webcasting. The main thing is that these print cites plus the web material lift this piece above the notability hurdle. Also I'm afraid I can't agree with you that the amount of labor someone devotes to an article is to be so casually dismissed in weighing the article's merits--anyone can see that there's a goodly amount of encyclopedic meat here in the "notable episodes" section that would be of interest to a person coming to Wikipedia in order to find out more about about the history of wrestling or webcasts or both. Finally, I have to observe that the Wikipedia essay to which you refer in citing WP:EFFORT offers this word to the wise: "[C]ountering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." ----Wageless (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a question... what would constitute a "reliable source"? This is a pro-wrestling article. It's going to be difficult to go find something from a major publication that would satisfy what Wikipedia considers reliable. I've found a couple of articles that at least bring up the Matt Hardy/Lita situation and the incident with The Heart Throbs. RedSoxFan3458 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting point. WWE has traditionally held the press at arms length, and even the most respectable of pro-wrestling news outlets are often dismissed with the perjorative label of "dirt sheet." Problem is, virtually no one covered these webcasts except for these "dirt sheets". It pains me as a WWE fan, (then again, a lot of things pain me as a WWE fan...) Regardless, WP:Notability is an objective standard to be met. Since WWE is a primary source, it can only establish basic facts about the webcast, and cannot establish its notability. That would therefore mean that unless additional info surfaces soon... (double checks the nomination date...) REALLY soon, the information about specific episodes would have to go, and the rest would logically be merged back into WWE. That, or we have to come up with a determination about these so called "dirt sheets." -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This program was a significant portion of WWE.com's viewing time while it was not on hiatus. Also, it still may return. Clay4president2 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was so significant then there should be reliable sourcesd that discuss it. Are there? No? Oh. The fact that it may return is irrelevant. There still need to be reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on the subject of reliable sources for a pro-wrestling article, please be objective and give your input on that part of the discussion that you skipped over.96.233.64.12 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)RedSoxFan3458[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.