Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom
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 — I'm closing this as a default keep because the rationales presented for keeping are extraordinarily weak. The best of them boil down to "I claim this is notable; it can be sourced". No one has demonstrated said notability, or come up with any sources to back up any of the numerous claims in the article.
One can only claim "it can be sourced" a few times before it's obvious it can't, and will be deleted. -Haemo 05:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Fingerpoke of Doom
Firm delete. NN, WP:NEO, WP:SOURCES, WP:PROVEIT. This is a pro-wrestling storyline of misleading importance. Endless Dan 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - if you read the sources and indeed ask anyone about the Fingerpoke of Doom, you will know that it was one of the main reasons for WCW's decline (just read Death of WCW, or indeed any other wrestling book which deals with WCW). No way you can delete this. Porterjoh 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are you refering to the no sources provided on the article? I am aware of the angle, but as noted on the talk page, WCW's ratings were declining for over 6 months. It's misleading and subjective to say this 1 angle happened was the main reason WCW collapsed. This may be the best example of WCW inept booking, but this in no way should constitute as the definitive day that WCW tanked. As noted in the book you were refering to, WCW collapsed due to a collective assortment of follies both in booking, hired personel & other poor decision making. If we are going to create articles soley on the perceived importance of an event, why not create articles based on when folks feel Hulkamania was created or when the WWF turned the corner to beat WCW? Strong delete. --Endless Dan 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone needs to stick sources in there - especially from the book Death of WCW. Porterjoh 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete unless attributed from reliable sources. A google of finger.poke.of.doom indicates the phrase is used, most often as a direct reference to this match, but most of the sources are forums and other RS-failing sites. (Name should be Finger Poke of Doom, if you ask me.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but needs sources desperatly. Davnel03 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect, perhaps the article is misleading about its importance, but it was important, nonetheless. Maybe this article should be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling. Some of the information is already mentioned and cited there. Nikki311 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but heavy clean-up. "The Death of WCW" would be a GREAT source to use for this article, as the book very frequently mentions it as one of the things that led to the major downfalls of WCW. FamicomJL 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, Death of WCW book references this event, but this is not the single even that caused WCW's downfall. --Endless Dan 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and reference. --Naha|(talk) 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Naha. This was WCW's answer to the Montreal Screwjob, in that it was a powerful pivot in the history of the company, and caused much distention among the fan base. Its importance is most certainly not overstated. It should have an article, but such a controversial event also requires sources. If it isn't sourced within 3 months, then I'll bring this back to AfD myself. The Hybrid T/C 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Grossly overstated and exagerated. The perceived importance of ‘the finger poke incident’ is not that 'this was the beginning of the end' for WCW as mentioned in the article. This can be demonstrated as WCW's ratings gradual slide in the ratings - which continued at the same pace even after this supposed 'pivotal moment’ happened. The only importance this event ascertains was the further diminishing in value of the WCW title. And that was in the opinion of 2 wrestling 'journalists'. To compare this to the Montreal incident is just silly. While this was viewed only in hindsight as a poor decision on WCW bookmaker's part, the Montreal incident warranted it's own documentary (Wrestling with Shadows) and was discussed outside of wrestling mediums (Montreal newspapers and early evening TV news rags). This article had nearly 3 years to establish independent sources and has failed to do so.
- For the record if WCW has an 'answer' to the incident in Montreal, it would be Vince Russo publicly firing Hulk Hogan (which interestingly wasn't deemed important enough to warrant it's own article).--Endless Dan 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - For your first paragraph, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. The truth is, regardless of whether it was or not, and whether or not you feel it is exaggerated, it has always been perceived to be the beginning of the end for WCW. You demonstrated some research to suggest otherwise, and if you find sources for it then you should put that into the article, but the point is to the casual observer this looks like the straw that broke the camel's back, and always has. That is why it is notable, because of how it has been treated and looked at, regardless of whether or not it is true. As for your second paragraph, I was referring to conceptual correlations that can be determined only in hindsight, ie. something can only be called a pivot when you have already seen it was a pivot. I wasn't referring to the literal screwing over of a person, but that isn't important. The Hybrid T/C 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perceiving would also be an opinion, that constitutes WP:OR.--Endless Dan 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Documenting the perception of the masses is what I'm talking about, not a personal perception. The Hybrid T/C 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perceiving would also be an opinion, that constitutes WP:OR.--Endless Dan 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - For your first paragraph, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. The truth is, regardless of whether it was or not, and whether or not you feel it is exaggerated, it has always been perceived to be the beginning of the end for WCW. You demonstrated some research to suggest otherwise, and if you find sources for it then you should put that into the article, but the point is to the casual observer this looks like the straw that broke the camel's back, and always has. That is why it is notable, because of how it has been treated and looked at, regardless of whether or not it is true. As for your second paragraph, I was referring to conceptual correlations that can be determined only in hindsight, ie. something can only be called a pivot when you have already seen it was a pivot. I wasn't referring to the literal screwing over of a person, but that isn't important. The Hybrid T/C 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Naha and Hybrid. Sources should not be all that hard to find. Gavyn Sykes 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia would not be what it is without articles like "The Fingerpoke of Doom". Ribonucleic 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE- notable due to this started the downfall of WCW.--Monnitewars (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: While the majority of WP:PW has banded together and asked for a keep, none have provided a factual argument or noted an independent source for this articles significance. A Google test performed brings up wrestling message board banter. The misleading lone source of any (but limited) credibility was the book titled the Death of WCW. This book concluded that in the opinion of the writers (as none were employees for WCW or Time Warner) that it was not one single event that caused the fall of the company, but rather gave several noted missteps (which did include this event amongst others) and ill-advised angles that caused the downfall of WCW. It would be foolish to say that single finger poke caused the destruction of a multi-million dollar company and is a misrepresentation the source. As noted in the book, that is referenced above by some posters above, WCW was already losing money prior to this incident and it's ratings were declining prior to this incident. This deceiving opinion may lead any potential reader to believe that this single event caused the greatest impact in the demise of WCW. Also, the user above requested 3 more months to bring this article to par, but this article has been given nearly 3 years and has failed to provide even a single independent source. The article has become a collection of beliefs, misconceptions and smark propaganda. And while I admire the project's accord, I fail to see the importance of this article and remain thoroughly unconvinced by any attempt at an argument made. -Endless Dan 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're done sounding off your original research which has no bearing on this discussion since you're calling the kettle black (you haven't provided one source either), I will respond by saying that you have completely misrepresented the arguments presented against your side. Not one of us has said this single-handedly lead to the downfall of WCW; we've simply said that it is a very famous and influential piece to the puzzle notable enough to have an article. The Hybrid T/C 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While the majority of WP:PW has banded together and asked for a keep, none have provided a factual argument or noted an independent source for this articles significance. A Google test performed brings up wrestling message board banter. The misleading lone source of any (but limited) credibility was the book titled the Death of WCW. This book concluded that in the opinion of the writers (as none were employees for WCW or Time Warner) that it was not one single event that caused the fall of the company, but rather gave several noted missteps (which did include this event amongst others) and ill-advised angles that caused the downfall of WCW. It would be foolish to say that single finger poke caused the destruction of a multi-million dollar company and is a misrepresentation the source. As noted in the book, that is referenced above by some posters above, WCW was already losing money prior to this incident and it's ratings were declining prior to this incident. This deceiving opinion may lead any potential reader to believe that this single event caused the greatest impact in the demise of WCW. Also, the user above requested 3 more months to bring this article to par, but this article has been given nearly 3 years and has failed to provide even a single independent source. The article has become a collection of beliefs, misconceptions and smark propaganda. And while I admire the project's accord, I fail to see the importance of this article and remain thoroughly unconvinced by any attempt at an argument made. -Endless Dan 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, here's a source [1] that debunks this entire smark myth that a fingerpoke lead to the collapse of WCW (and also refutes your claim above that this was the perception of the general masses). According to this source, WCW's rating spiked the night of the fingerpoke through the following 5 weeks. Furthermore, it can been seen their ratings continued the steady slide and did not drop below the level of the 2 months previous until May of that year. Doesn't seem like casual fans viewed this as the final nail in WCW. The numbers seem to show that this event actually staved off a quicker collapse. The only source material cited is a single book. This should be no more than a footnote in an article of the book in question (an article which does not exist). You are not documenting the perception of the masses. This debate isn't about you and your opinions. It's about this article. Nothing has been given to prove the fame and influence of this particular event.--Endless Dan 23:28, 17 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.
