Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Wrestling Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Definitely needs more sources and a clear establishment of notability, though; a future nomination (as conceded by the "keep" proponents) is likely without them. Chick Bowen 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Wrestling Federation

Australian Wrestling Federation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A non-notable professional wrestling promotion. Despite valiant attempts, the authors of the article have been unable to provide independent reliable sources asserting the notability of the organisation. The promotion has no mainstream media coverage in Australia. Mattinbgn\talk 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. Twenty Years 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable organization. Keb25 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. But only if additional secondary sources can be added. Renee 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge content into another larger wrestling article?JJJ999 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick response to the concerns I have expressed, but in it's present form I agree with Mattinbgn !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - "the authors" haven't been given any time to establish notability. We were told that we would have 2 months, and here it is not even a week later and it's up for deletion. The original author, no offense to him, had no idea what he was doing, so he took some good advice and came to WP:PW for help, and we haven't had like any time to help him out and establish that this indeed passes WP:ORG, WP:N, and the rest of the policies. I was already planning to nominate this article for WP:PWCOTW in a couple of weeks to jump-start the progress being made. Give us the two months that we were promised in the beginning, and we won't let you down. The Hybrid T/C 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Point taken about the original author. I did mean contributors to the article. Regardless of what may have been said by others, I have not given any undertaking to give you any set time period. I have been watching the ongoing discussion on the article talk page for a few days now, came to the conclusion that the article was unlikely to meet notability requirements and it would be best to put this before the community now for a decision one way or the other. There is always the option to userfy and restore to the article namespace if and when notability is established. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So, because you didn't promise us time yourself, and you have a hunch that we won't be able to pull it off, you think that it should be deleted now, and not even give us a chance? Gee, thanks. Userfy is a crappy deal, because it dramatically limits how much exposure you can give it. For example, I had already planned to nominate this for WP:PWCOTW, but if it is userfied I can't do that. All I can do is spam people for help, which will annoy people, and probably won't get it back into article space anyway. Just let us have the time we were promised. The Hybrid T/C 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Additional note that I have only just discovered. This article has a deletion history. It was deleted in July according to the deletion log. I don't know how long the previous page was in existence for so maybe there was a longer period of time to establish notability than we previously thought? !! Justa Punk !! 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Whenever that article was around, I know for a fact that WP:PW wasn't working on it. This isn't about how much time it has had; this is about the fact that people who know what they are doing and haven't been given a chance to succeed are asking for a fair shot at saving this article. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I don't think you will be able to demonstrate notability, in the next week or in the next two months, hence my nomination. Personally, with new articles, I attempt to demonstrate notability first before creating the article. I know you didn't create it, but I don't see why that should absolve this article from the need to demonstrate the notability of the subject, not at some future time, but now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Because, as someone showed down below with Google news, we know that the sources exist; we just need to track them down. I know this sounds completely retarded, but I ask you to keep an open mind for my explanation. This is an Australian company. When a term like Australian Wrestling Federation is typed into Google, the most common terms to come up are American terms since most wrestling takes place here, and many companies have hired Australian wrestlers. This buries the sources behind thousands of results. We also don't know of anything more specific to type in since we are not Australian, and the original author can't really do anything to help us. We need time to dig through them, and we will need a fair number of people, which is why userfying won't work. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Allow for expansion Bobsbasement 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Expansion is not the issue. Notability is. I would be happy to keep a stub on a topic that demonstrates notability, which this article signally fails to do. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Hybrid that the authors should have more time to establish, with sources, the notability of the organization. If it's operating in Sydney, Australia, notability would depend on whether the matches take place in a major arena, or in a school gymnasium. Mandsford 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, that would be a good place to start. I suspect the answer is significantly towards the lower end of the scale, otherwise finding sources would not be as difficult as it has been. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A Google News Archive search indicates that the matches take place in clubs around Sydney. There is some coverage in suburban newspapers for its events. [1]. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And the locals are not notable sources and have been removed (as in Blacktown and Campbelltown). Newcastle and Wollongong are better though. However as Mattinbgn pointed out, they aren't major venues. There have been some improvements, but the article is still in trouble IMO. !! Justa Punk !! 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and let the Wikiproject work on it. What do contributors lose when their article gets deleted? An hour/day/week of work. What do deletionists lose when the article gets kept? Nothing (ok a bruised ego but that's about it). Besides you can always nominate it later and the Wikiproject might even do it for you if they found out that the article is really non-notable. --Lenticel (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What does WP lose if a non-notable article is kept is the question you should be asking. And the answer is credibility. The WP rules are there for a reason. !! Justa Punk !! 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That would also be the thing deletionist will lose if they keep on arguing and judging without even lifting a finger to help. WP policies isn't used as a license to put the contributor under the thumb of the deletionist. As I said earlier, you can always re-Afd the article after the Wikiproject been through researching.--Lenticel (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You assume that I haven't tried to help. I have. And I failed to find evidence that was notable. Does that make me a deletionist simply because it's assumed I haven't tried to help? Assumptions aren't exactly a good idea here. Might be an idea to note the latest edit on the AWF talk page, and (I've said this before) review the rules of notability. Basically the question is, "Why is the Australian Wrestling Federation notable?", and in answering that question there needs to be third party objective evidence that can be checked from a reliable source. Simple isn't it? I'm starting to lean towards Mattinbgn's view and against giving the two months - because if it's notable, sources should be easy to find. I couldn't, and what was added the other day didn't really help enough IMO. Stay away from local papers and fansites - they aren't reliable. !! Justa Punk !! 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I shall quote myself from above, "When a term like Australian Wrestling Federation is typed into Google, the most common terms to come up are American terms since most wrestling takes place here, and many companies have hired Australian wrestlers. This buries the sources behind thousands of results. We also don't know of anything more specific to type in since we are not Australian, and the original author can't really do anything to help us. We need time to dig through them." There is nothing in the notability policy stating that the source has to be easy to find; it just says the source must be reputable. The community obviously understands this, and is willing to work with us and give us time. The Hybrid T/C 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the notability policy stating that the source has to be easy to find. I never said that, Hybrid. I'm saying that the fact that the sources are not easy to find reflects on the notability. The less notable it is, the harder sources are to find. The key to it all is an Australian based news website, much like WON in the US. There isn't one - it's all fansites from what I can tell. I noticed an edit on the Professional wrestling in Australia talk page where someone made a comment about the Australian scene being "fragmented". That certainly makes the locating of sources not only difficult, but it may partly explain why that is the case. !! Justa Punk !! 09:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Difficulty doesn't reflect on notability when we are talking about a non-American or European market for a mostly American or European product. The AWF may very well be covered by such a news website, but when the population of that continent is only 21,110,000, while America and the UK's populations total 363,230,300, it is very possible that a news site that easily passes WP:RS has less links to it that a fansite that doesn't pass WP:RS. I'm afraid that you are entirely mistaken in your conceptions of what portrays notability. The Hybrid T/C 12:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what the consensus is about that, Hybrid. I don't agree with you. Notability isn't a rule that alters based on population. I think you'll find that major newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald would stack up quite well to most of the major dailes in your area. I challenge you to make the case for notability for this article under the rules point for point - and I would suggest that when you do you may well see that I am correct. Then again....maybe not. I don't know. !! Justa Punk !! 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that notability alters, I said that google results alter, which they do. The reliable sources are buried, and they are buried simply because of population. The Hybrid T/C 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you bury sources? If they're there, they're there. If they aren't, they aren't. !! Justa Punk !! 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It has to do with the way Google's search engine runs. It doesn't run on the notability of a page. The Hybrid T/C 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But if it's not showing up early in a Google search, that surely reflects badly on it's notability? !! Justa Punk !! 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, actually. It gages hyperlinks to a page to determine its placement, not how reliable or notable it is. As I've pointed out before, due to the different market sizes a reliable Australian source can show up buried behind non-notable American fansites that are linked to by countless other non-notable fansites. It is a strange situation, and one that is very uncommon. The Hybrid T/C 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's buried behind such websites - it's not notable. It is impossible for a promotion that can pass the notability test to be dropped behind such sites. Not strange or uncommon - impossible. How many reliable US based websites have "Australian Wrestling Federation" on them? (Not AWF - Australian Wrestling Federation) Only one has been found (WON). I have searched for Australian sources and only found fansites and of course the official site. This promotion is not notable. I have nothing further to say. The prosecution rests. !! Justa Punk !! 10:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My response, the prosecution doesn't understand how google search results are organized. The Hybrid T/C 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN --Endless Dan 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears to me to establish notability. Multiple sources from print and international web media. Nosleep1234 14:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and source. Makes much more sense than deleting everything. I have no doubt that notability can be sufficiently established (especially if Justa Punk stops removing references). GaryColemanFan 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have only removed references that are not permitted under WP rules. There is nothing wrong with that. !! Justa Punk !! 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Five pages of Live Search reveals nothing but the official site, this site and a mirror (answers.com), back street newspapers and garbage sites bar one mention from Wrestling Observer on a show in Minto (where?) GetDumb 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep allow for expansionnotability to be established. If nothing is done, in say a month time, AFD again. Davnel03 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As above, expansion is not the issue. Notability is. I would be happy to keep a stub on a topic that demonstrates notability, which this article signally fails to do. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies. Even, so this article was only created three weeks ago, I think we should give it more time. Davnel03 12:55, 22 October 2007 (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.