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)[reply]

What Culture Pro Wrestling[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's always a chance that's going to happen. I just would had for someone to have to start from scratch should the promotion take off and meet the guidelines. CrashUnderride 01:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? AFD is not a vote. KaisaL (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[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.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_(American_Band). ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
More