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. It is clear from the discussion below that a) there are arguments for keeping one or multiple articles in the bundled nom and b) the preference is for smaller, more manageable AfDs. As such, this close is being done without prejudice re-nomination and possibly deletion of one or multiple articles included in the nomination. --jonny-m t 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Professionals[edit]

Federation is wholly not notable. I am also going to add all the titles and wrestlers associated with this federation to this AfD Darrenhusted (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the titles from WWP

The associated federations

Thier titles

The venue

And wrestlers

And also if these pages are deleted then Category:South African professional wrestlers and Category:South African professional wrestling promotions will be empty and Template:Professional wrestling in South Africa will be all redlinks and so I will also propose TfD and CfDs at the relevant time.

All the above pages are the work of one user [1] who does not edit any other pages and seems to have spent the last few months building a walled garden.

These nominations follow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akilah (wrestler), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananzi (wrestler) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.W. Bulldog (wrestler).

All the articles above fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY How is it a 'walled garden'? It's not like the South African wrestling industry, which you obviously know nothing about, employs people to do these articles. I did those in my own time and used notable references. Not many people in South Africa even know that those Wikipedia articles exist. I've informed a few people, but they didn't take the time and effort to contribute (and they have more knowledge of the subject than I do). I guess I'll just have to go somewhere else to preserve the history and knowledge of the SA wrestling industry. Thank you, Wikipedia, for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs)
Reply, I cannot find any notable third party references. It is a walled garden because the article only link to each other. And removing [2] AfD notices will not stop deletion, you need to improve the articles. For "Africa Wrestling Alliance" Google only finds 15 unique hits, and for "World Wrestling Professionals" only 18 unique hits, with the Wikipedia pages being first or second. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Darrenhusted I see, but this is truly upsetting as I've spent quite a bit of time finding little bits of information and creating those articles. One more thing: When you do those searches for the WWP and AWA promotions, you need to look for "WWP Thunderstrike" and also "Africa Wrestling Federation (respectively), since WWP's flagship TV show is WWP Thunderstrike and AWA used to be known as Africa Wrestling Federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WWP Thunderstrike" brings up 64 unique Ghits and "Africa Wrestling Federation" brings up 21 unique Ghits. Plus the amount of time spent on an article or articles is no reason to keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I have made a search of my own to corroborate the ones made above and am satisfied that this federation exists and has been noticed. It doesn't have to be a huge US franchise to be in Wikipedia since this encyclopedia is global and comprehensive in scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say it didn't exist, it is not notable, and if you want to tell me what you searched for because all my searches come up with are the fed's own website (not WP:RS) and the wikipedia entries listed above. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment When I searched using "WWP Thunderstrike" in the Google engine (ignoring that Yahoo alone comes up with 557 results) the Wikipedia articles were not at the top of the list. These are the websites that appear (in order) on the first two search pages:

TVSA (2 entries at the top)
WWP.co.za (2 entries)
RolandG.co.za
SABCEducation.co.za (2 entries)
SABC2.co.za
WWPThunderstrike.com (2 entries)
702.co.za
WeekendPost.co.za
YourCity.co.za
DewetMeyer.com
Aha.co.za (2 entries)
(And then) Wikipedia.com
Sabcgroupsales.co.za
Truveo.com
Video.Aol.com ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

WWP.co.za asks me to sign in, so can't be a RS. DewetMeyer.com says "domain reserved", www.rolandg.co.za is a blog, wwpthunderstrike.com is not a third party source. www.sabcgroupsales.co.za/new/default.asp is a radio site. These are not WP:RS.

I searched using exact match and barely got more than a handful of sites all of which were simply reprinting the same press release. I think anyone advocating keep needs to check WP:RS. My concern arose because all these pages have had one user doing the bulk of the editing, and while I do not doubt the existence of the federations I do not think that they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWP.co.za is no longer the official website. I cited the new official website as a reference in that article, which is wwpthunderstrike.com. ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

As Bardin mentioned near the bottom, WWP has been noted in some news articles, like the Nigerian tribune, Weekend Post and Herald. AWA has been featured in news articles as well: IOL and People's Post. ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

Delete all except Johnny Palazzio, Steve Cohen (wrestler), and Steve Debbes, I've been looking for third party refs for these articles for while now and had planned to AfD most of them at some point because they can't be verified or sourced. Most of these wrestlers haven't even held a championship in the South African promotions. Hardly notable. The three exceptions I have listed (Johnny Palazzio, Steve Cohen (wrestler), and Steve Debbes) have some notability being on the PWI lists and winning championships in the NWA and WCCW. The rest should be deleted. I also agree that this is a walled garden. Nikki311 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A casual search on google indicate that the organisation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention on independent and reliable publications. Examples include news article in the Nigerian tribune, the South African Weekend Post and the South African Herald. A wrestling organisation from South Africa is not going to have a large online presence compared to something from the United States and yet, there's multiple non-trivial coverage of the entity. Seems notable enough to merit a place on Wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, then keep the organizations, too, but delete the wrestlers, titles, etc that don't have non-trivial mentions. Nikki311 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Nikki Nikki, what about Shaun Koen? He was was on the PWI list as well and has more notability than the other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes. He appears to have some notability of his own, as well. I apologize for missing that article. Shaun Koen can be kept, as well. Nikki311 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, deletion is not appropriate. If particular articles are too slight on their own then they would be merged into one or more consolidations of the material. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if they can't prove notability? Nikki311 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if any of the article listed can be improved then I am happy to withdraw them from this list and make it clear to the closing admin that they are not to be deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply What do you suggest I do to improve them? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I suggest you read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI. Then find some third party, reliable, verifiable sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Its disappointing that the Wikipedia Administrators would want to delete such a well-written and complete article. South African wrestling fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. --Nocoolname (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Nocoolname (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Errr ... it's already plain that this AfD is a mess. I recommend withdrawing it and resubmitting in smaller chunks, as opposed to a portmanteau of this fed and everything and everyone that can be said to be associated with it. RGTraynor 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree it's a mess, if articles are improved then I will strikethrought the nominations so it is clear what needs to be deleted. The discussion may be a mess, but the AfD is still clear, all these articles lack good references and do not assert notablility. It is better to get them sorted in one go rather than in pieces, a process which could take weeks. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: A casual glance at the conversation shows "Keep all but these" or "Delete all but these," with broad disagreement as to what and whether. That's what makes this AfD a mess, and that's exactly why giant portmanteau AfDs are almost always a terrible idea. RGTraynor 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Google should not be used as a notablity guide, I'd suggest that the nom reconsider the entire nomination - it looks like a tactical nuke is being used were all is needed is a bit of effort to clean up the articles that need sources. Also, the comment "if articles are improved then I will strikethrought the nominations" would seem to indicate that the nominator is using the AFD process as a cleanup process - never a good thing. Lets not have another Mzoli's situation please... Fosnez (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, but Google proves that there are no sources available to cleanup the articles. Nikki311 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD and divide into more reasonable chunks. I know AFD allows for the nomination of multiple articles, but this is simply too much. It's quite possible there may be individual articles that warrant deletion or merging, but it's impossible to tell with this flood, which seems likely to simply end up with a "keep all" decision, even if there might well be articles worthy of being killed. No opinion, however, is being expressed regarding the viability or lack thereof of any of the articles listed; this is my opinion of this particular blanket AFD. The necessity of closing this and starting over is made clear by the nominator's statement above that he might withdraw individual articles from this AFD, which would require a "revote" because the parameters of the AFD will have changed. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, close and divide into separate AfDs. It seems people see a long list of articles and vote to keep all with only providing notability or sources for a few articles (if any at all). Nikki311 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Specifically, nominate in collections that group like with like -- the wrestlers together, the titles together, and so on. A person has, in the details, different ways of becoming notable than an organization, which is why WP:BIO is separate from WP:ORG. Incidentally, I strongly suspect the federations can demonstrate notability and would likely be kept in a renom. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it is important, however, that the articles should be read before they are nominated. I agree with Nikki311 that only about 4 or 5 of these articles are worth keeping. I am very concerned that Steve Cohen (wrestler) was lumped in with the nomination simply because of his country of origin. He has nothing else in common with the rest of the nominations, and I believe that his article definitely demonstrates notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now but relist without prejudice. Just too much and the answers appear to not be uniform. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I enquire, without prejudice, of the nominator, would your opinion change if this were, as it were, "de-walled" -- that is, suitable links built in to other wrestling and sport articles ? If not, then why raise the argument in the first place ? -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to all, I look through all these article one by one, did google searches for exact matches one by one, then went back to each article one by one. The primary source on every page is the AWA website, this AfD is generating more links for most of these pages than the actual articles. Within all these article I have not seen anything that meets the standards for notability. The feds have no widepsread coverage on google or elsewhere, the titles do not meet the standards for title notablility and most of the wrestlers have only wrestled for the above lsted feds. As for the few who seem to have wrestled elsewhere, when was appearing in the bottom 50 of the PWI 500 the bar for notability? Notability is not inherited, holding titles and being in the bottom 50 are not acheivements which merit a place on wikipedia.

As for the AfD bundling the titles and feds seemed easy to bundle, as they are all as non-notable as each other, and looking at the contributions of the main editor (Ajsytles_tna_roh), I could see that he had a habit of removing AfD notices from articles (at least five times by my count) and I felt that it would be easier to nominated one group of articles and monitor than watch 28 seperate AfDs. Given that the editor in question has kept filibustering this one AfD I cannot imagine how much filibustering would take place in 28 AfDs.

However we work by consensus I am more than happy for this AfD to be closed without prejudice, and the seperate topics broken up and relisted under four or five AfDs (or 28 if someone wants that headache). My only request would be that someone actually looks at the articles, and that the Keep or Delete votes are doen on the merits of the articles and not the course of this AfD.Darrenhusted (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you looked through them one by one, you would have seen that, contrary to your claim that the AWA website is the primary source for every article, Steve Cohen (wrestler) has nothing to do with AWA, WWP, PWA or IWF. He wrestled in WCCW, GWF and NWA Pacific Northwest (all of which are notable promotions) and held major titles in all three. The only reason I can see for including him here is that he happens to have been born in a country in which a non-notable promotion now exists. I would like to see some of the wrestlers from this AfD bundled together for a new AfD, but I can't support this AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to make a smaller bundle of the ones that are obviously non-notable (1-3 sentences long): Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler), The Playa (wrestler), PJ Black (wrestler), The Lizard (wrestler) and Nizaam Hartley. Once they have been deleted, we can work from there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment absolutely not my subject, but sources requiring sign-in, or even payment, or even in print and not on the internet at all, can all of them be reliable sources. They can't be used for external links, but we don;'t limit RSs on that basis. DGG (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and renominate individual articles rather than attempt to delete in bulk, per 23skidoo. McJeff (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before !vote. This mass bundling is most troubling as this device can be used (even inadvertently) to sweep up an otherwise viable article that would possibly be mixed in with all the others. This makes as much sense as proposing that Wikipedia delete every article with the word "wrestling" in it. The fact that a wrestling association is less than a decade old is irrelevant to its notoriety as historically, some associations made their mark in a brief period of time. Also, I hesitate to add to the systemic bias by deleting something that is not from North America, Australia, or Europe because independent sources are not as forthcoming (one valid link led to a Zambian source). Frankly, the wiser choice here is to close discussion and improve sources. But if we are unwise enough to approve this bundling, extremely strong keep until/unless someone is willing to break this up into bite-sized pieces, and I claim that this borders on abuse of process. B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I agree that it would be great to improve the referencing, reliable sources simply do not exist and are not available for most of these articles. The consensus seems to be to close this discussion and renominate individual articles or smaller groups, and I agree with that completely. Several editors at WP:PW have tried to locate sources, but there just aren't enough to establish notability. We have tried to work with the editor and encourage him to expand the articles and provide reliable sources, but he has repeatedly ignored our requests and continued to create more unsourced stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (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.