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. No consensus to delete; opinions are split on whether this article should be kept separate or merged. Discussion of the topic can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States[edit]

List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's unfortunate that the nominator decided to send this to AFD without allowing me to respond to my perfectly reasonable question on the talk page. As I explained to this editor, this does not merit deletion under WP:NOTDIR, specifically clause 4, which states:

"Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article."

This is not an attempt to list every independent wrestling promotion in the United States but is intended to be a well-referenced listing of notable independent promotions Wikipedia "should" have (not unlike WP:MISSING). In the original version of this article, every entry had two or more cited references. While the majority were from ProWrestling.com, Solie.org and Wrestling-Titles.com, all frequently used and accepted sources on WP wrestling articles [1] [2] [3], it also contained several books and news articles. While its true additional entries have been added without sources, the current article contains over 200 cited references. I don't understand why he feels the article is "poorly sourced" or which of the references he has an issue with.

I also find it in somewhat bad faith that this editor has accused me of having a conflict of interest or that I am trying to "advertise". Its also misleading to suggest I am the original author. I told the editor that I would have been happy to help improve the article if he pointed out his concerns. There are more than enough existing promotions on WP to justify a list although I could have provided additional references had I been given the opportunity to do so (as I had on List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand). Deletion seems a tad extreme in this case given other alternatives available, for example, removing the uncited or "non-notable" entries. Despite my polite request, the editor has not named even one of the "number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N".

I attempted to discuss these issues in a civil manner but, from what I gathered on the talk page (and his above comments), he isn't interested in my opinion. In his reply, I was told that I "failed to address the concerns expressed in the prod" despite the fact that I was awaiting his response to find out what these concerns specifically were. On the articles in which I did "address these concerns", he nominated them for deletion regardless. While I disagree with many of his assertions, particularly that an article isn't notable if it doesn't already have a WP article, I have made a sincere attempt to improve this and similar articles. I've never questioned his motives only his reasoning.

In short, there are a number of independent wrestling promotions in the US. While I'll be the first to agree that not "every" promotion is notable, there are a limited number of promotions that are regardless if there isn't an article for them yet. A significant amount already exist on Wikipedia so why is putting them on a list suddenly a problem? If there are specific "non-notable" entries, then they can be removed. Deleting the list in its entirety simply doesn't make sense according to the reasons given by the nominator. 71.184.40.212 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads to me like you definitely have a vested interest in this. Suggest you back off and see what everyone else thinks. !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that may I ask? Because I disagree with you? I've simply given my opinion and I do have a right to express it. I've done nothing to warrant your hostile tone. Instead of making accusations perhaps you could respond to any of the points I raised above? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to prove my statement incorrect. You're adding cruft to Wikipedia and that's not encyclopaedic. You have the right to express an opinion, but you have no right to go completely against WP:NOTDIR, WP:N and WP:COI. That is what you are trying to do and I have the right to try and stop you from adding what amounts to junk on this site. You have to prove that it's not junk - and with facts. Not your opinion. And there is already a page listing all the promotions with WP articles so this is double handling like I said. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you suggesting exactly? That I'm somehow associated with every independent promotion on this list, defunct or otherwise? And I assume this applies to my arguments for the Australia, Mexico and New Zealand list as well? I'm sorry but I'm the only one who has been arguing with facts. Unfortunately, you have responded by intimidation, dishonesty and rudeness. You continue to make unwarrented and wild accusations towards me. I haven't added ANY promotions (i.e. "junk") to the list. I did add additional sources to the other pages you've nominated and which you've yet to acknowledge.

I've never once objected to the removal of non-notable promotions from this list. I'm not arguing that all the promotions on the list must be kept. But are all the un-linked promotions on here "not notable"? You've refused to even discuss the matter on the talk page and in this discussion. If you look through the list carefully, there are more then enough existing articles already. This follows WP:LIST to the letter and does not warrant the deletion of the list itself. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not available, Regent. That's why they aren't notable. It is not possible to improve this article. I've already done my research, and this makes my argument far from shabby. You can't just add promotions to Wikipedia for the heck of it. They have to be notable and that notability has to be verifiable through third party independent reliable sources. Why double handle what's already available? !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then a list containing promotions referenced with "third party independent reliable sources" would be acceptable correct? There are 200+ cited references right now. Which of these do disagree with? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them because they only establish existence - not notability. The only notable ones are the ones who have WP articles. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very "first" cited reference, for Power & Glory Wrestling in Connecticut, is to an article on the promotion by noted wrestling author Brian Solomon. A quick search on Wikipedia shows his work is cited in 440+ wrestling articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, a project you yourself are involved with, lists Solomon as a reliable source.

Essentially your argument boils down to this:

  1. Wrestling promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable (which violates WP:RED among other policies; many independent promotions that do exist are included in the article).
  2. Even if they were, the list is "poorly sourced" and is not covered by "third party independent reliable sources" (despite the 200 cited references already on the page you've yet to name one unreliable source as an example).
  3. A list such as this is "unencyclopedic" (despite articles covering independent wrestlers and the independent circuit itself).
  4. This list constitutes advertising and a directory (despite the fact that the clauses you state in said policies do not apply in any way - you've yet to specify how they do).

You state you've "done your homework" and that "all of them" are not notable. It took me a considerable time to find sources for List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand. Because of this, I believe I've made a strong case that the majority of the un-linked promotions are notable. Perhaps now you might be willing to do the same? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. About an hour after my last post, I've done a cursory search on Google News. At random I picked the 20-year old "Power League Wrestling" in Rhode Island (currently the only one in the state). Among my results? An article on the promotion by the Providence Journal ("Bruisers go to the mat for a worthy cause"). Albeit a pay article, as many of them were, there were a number of articles covering their activities as a charity organization. Beginner's luck perhaps? Alright, let's see what our second random search picks up for the Allied Independent Wrestling Federation in North Carolina. Another news article by the Winston-Salem Journal ("IT'S ALL-OUT WAR ; BLOOD, GUTS AND THEATER ATTRACT FANS TO THE WONDERS OF HARD-CORE WRESTLING"). The New York Wrestling Connection, a promotion owned by Mikey Whipwreck, has numerous hits. And among these is an article by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ("WHIPWRECK LEARNED HARD LESSONS -- NOW HE'S A TEACHER"). According to SLAM! Sports, Mike Mondo started his career there ("Mike Mondo still has the spirit") as well as Matt Striker (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Matt Striker) and Christopher Daniels (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Christopher Daniels) having notable stints in the promotion. The promotion has been listed on your own wrestling wikiproject's "requested articles" list for nearly a year.
The news articles I've produced are not press releases or advertisements. They are articles, granted from local (but perfectly notable) newspapers, that fulfill "Significant coverage" as required by WP:N and WP:CORP. If you've "done your homework", as you say, then you've unfortunately missed one of two of these articles in your search. Furthermore, this demonstrates that at least "some" of the articles in question "are" notable. While you may show some that are not, and again I would not object to removing a legitimate non-notable entry, your whole argument hinges on the fact that "all" of the un-linked articles are not notable, not only because they don't already have an article on Wikipedia, but that there are no reliable sources that exist even if they did. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you to create articles on these promotions. If they are notable there should be an article on them. But you won't because you prefer this unencyclopaedic source. I only claimed the research had been done on the Australian promotions so don't put words into my mouth. I never said or meant that in relation to the US. Local newspaper significance depends entirely on it's circulation, publication frequency and general content. Now I can't comment on that in the US but in Australia there are local papers that are primarily advertising vehicles. You're taking this way too personally to be reliable so I suggest we wait for other opinions to see if there is a consensus either way - not that it ultimately makes a difference because AfD's aren't votes. !! Justa Punk !! 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Would the creation of articles be a general requirement in an AFD discussion? What we're talking about is this specific list, and whether or not it's notable, not the individual entries. However, as you bring up the subject, the original author apparently created Mason-Dixon Wrestling around the time of this list. Paulie Gilmore and Cueball Carmichael, both listed as promoters, have also been created since then. A registered user created MXW Pro Wrestling four months ago. While I'm not claiming this list is "responsible" for that per se, formerly un-linked entries on this list have been fulfilled (see WP:RED). I've also demonstrated evidence of notability for other un-linked promotions on this list. I assume now that you've abandoned your original argument?

As for "putting words in your mouth", your reasons for proding the article were that it "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes a number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N". Now I would assume at this point it is more of a concern you brought up rather than a presumption of an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion. Per the guidelines for objections, I left a reasonable question in both the edit summary and the talk page with the intention of finding out what your specific concerns were. In fact, I even offered in good faith to help improve the article until you were satisfied (or not) that these concerns were (or could be) addressed. You instead dismissed my comments without allowing me to respond and decided to take it to AFD. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you had actually checked the promotions prior to this and other nominations. Once you've done so, it is you who has the responsibility to actually check for sources before nominating an article for deletion. If you haven't done even that then it is yourself, not I, whose "reliability" is in question. From what I've gathered in your above statement, am I to understand that you've only checked the Australian list? 72.74.204.219 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said I'm not sure I follow you. You don't. I am making myself crystal clear on this matter, and bluntly you aren't paying attention to what I say. Bottom line - if the promotion is notable, create and article for it. End of problem. This list is not notable and everything else I said in the nomination applies - especially the double handling issue. That is my last statement to you. Let's hear other thoughts. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I didn't follow you, I was referring to your "challenge". I'm sorry but I've replied to each and every claim you've made in this discussion. You have not answered any of mine. If you disagree with my arguments, then why not respond to them? It's not that I don't understand you. I simply don't agree with your opinion that because a list contains entries, those currently without an article on Wikipedia article, then all the promotions must be "non-notable" and the entire list is "unencyclopedic" and "advertising". I've pointed out that there are a significant amount of promotions on this list that do have articles (75 by my count) and have provided reliable sources that prove notability for un-linked articles you claim are "not notable". My issue is with the notability of this list not specific entries therein. This list, if it indeed contains non-notable promotions, should be cleaned up and properly sourced. It's a notable topic and I don't feel it warrants deletion.

I apologise if you've become upset in the course of our conversation, however, I think I've been calm and perfectly civil to you. Though in my opinion, if I may be honest, is that your rush to take this (and three other articles) to AFD may have been premature. You say you've only checked the sources for the Australian list but none of the others including this article. You point to policies without specifying how they qualify. The clauses you do eventually state (e.g. #4 of WP:NOTDIR) are incorrect. I have no personal feelings towards yourself or this article. I objected to your proding the article because of your reasoning, as I would have done so for any other article, not because I have some sort of ulterior motive. I wonder if you would have spoken differently if you'd been discussing this with one of your colleagues from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry but you're wrong. The list he refers to is for general wrestling promotions that only exist on Wikipedia. The scope of this list is "notable" independent promotions, a legitimate subtopic of professional wrestling in the United States, and includes 75 existing independent promotions on Wikipedia that are on this list. The policy you cite, WP:IINFO, is intended for lists that are of very limited interest or are "too specific" (e.g. list of wrestling promotions whose heavyweight champions are named Bob). Per WP:List, it is my opinion that this qualifies as a stand-alone list. The only limitation I see, according to WP:LIST and WP:RED, is that entries must require reliable sources per WP:RS. The original list contained 190+ cited references, and has since increased to over 200. Whether of not these additional promotions are notable, as proven "non-notable" promotions can be removed, this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself. But even if that were not the case, according to WP:RED, would you agree that I would be within my rights to add a "notable" promotion to List of professional wrestling promotions if I could support it though WP:RS? If you check the history of the article this may not be the case. For the record, I have never edited this list despite the similarity of the IP address.
As I earlier explained, this is not a listing of "every" independent promotion in the US. There is a decidedly "limited" amount of promotions from a "limited" number of US states (32 of 50 states to be precise). There have been literally thousands of independent promotions that have been active in the United States since the 1990s. The original listed 190+ promotions, both defect and active, in the past 20 years. The fact that every entry was supported by two or more cited references (per WP:RS) shows that each promotion was notable. The fact that many of the promotions did not have articles at the time of its creation is irrelevant (per WP:RED). However, I have demonstrated that several of the non-existing promotions were notable via "significant coverage" by major newspapers (per WP:N and WP:CORP). The nominator has even admitted that he did not check if they were prior to nominating the article (as per AFD: Before nominating an article for deletion). Of course, we should remember that this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself not its content. It is a perfectly acceptable reason to create a more specific list (per WP:LIST) and, in point of fact, has a clearly defined scope (i.e. "notable" independent promotions in the United States which can be proven though WP:N and WP:CORP). Have I misinterpreted any of the policies I've pointed to? I think this argument on the List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico, another article this editor has nominated for similar reasons, applies perfectly. Do you disagree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to WP:LIST, it's recommended to use ((Stand-alone list)) instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.60.112 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand why my arguments for keeping this article are being described as "antics". I think I've argued my point in good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. May I ask how have I been disruptive or have otherwise engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly seem to have a fixation with this. See what I said on the Afd about promotions in Mexico. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "fixation"? That doesn't really sound like an assumtion of good faith. Your statement also presumes that this is this first AFD I've participated in and that I've taken an unexplained and "sudden" interest in this specific article. I simply feel the nominator is misapplying Wikipedia policy (in good faith of course). If you'll read though this discussion, he has cited general policy yes. He has even refered to Section 4 of WP:NOTDIR (i.e. being used as a business directory and/or as a resource to conduct business). But he has not once actually specified how it applies to this article. Nor has he responded to "any" of my arguments (e.g. what information is on this list that is not on, for example, List of NWA territories of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion?). His only replies to me have been to claim I have a conflict of interest and the assertion that "promotions aren't notable if they don't already have an article". Now if I point out his argument is irrelevent to the discussion at hand (see arguments to the person) or ignores a basic policy (see WP:RED), who is acting appropriately in this discussion? 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the actually noteworthy ones (there are several in the list which do not have enough reliable sources (reliable being the key), to make them worth mentioning. I'm proposing making a proper Professional wrestling in the United States article, similar to the other similar ones for Mexico, Japan, etc, under the appropriate name, that blends in elements from the list and the history. The list does have sources, so once the entries that are only sourced to reliable or insigificant coverage are weeded out, I see no reason why the rest can't be rewritten into prose as part of a article covering the entire topic. As Starblind also notes, those that are not noteworthy (versus purely notable) should not be included and many of those in this list are not noteworthy. Alternately, the list, when culled down, chould be merged to List of professional wrestling promotions#United States of America, though as they are "independent" I'm not entirely sure they would fit with the list' current topic. Also, while we all understand you are passionate about this topic, you really are not aiding the discussion by making lengthy replies to anyone who does not simply say keep. You've already made your views clear, so repeating them over and over is really not necessary. You may wish to review WP:AFDEQ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to "anyone who doesn't vote keep". If I reply to someone with a valid question, say, why does this particular list not meet WP:LIST isn't resonable for this point to be acknowledged? You say the majority of the entries fail WP:N or do not contain reliable sources. Are you saying that none of them meet WP:RS? I think I've already proved they have. As for my "lengthy" replies, I don't think my particular writing style should the the focus of discussion. 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I respectfully disagree sir. In the interests of keeping my replies brief, I point to here and here. Can you explain by a listing of notable independent promotions does not qualify as a Stand-alone list? The many defunct promotions are, I believe, "historically significant" organizations. South Atlantic Pro Wrestling, for example, was founded by George Scott and later run by Paul Jones and Frank Dusek. The Global Wrestling Association was owned by Al Snow. Additionally, almost every entry on this list is cited with 200+ references. Does that not support that most, if not all, referenced promotions are notable? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. While George Scott is a notable person for other reasons, things do not inherit notability by association (for details, see WP:NOTINHERITED). South Atlantic Pro Wrestling is such a minor blip in George Scott's career that it's only given one sentence in his article. As far as sourcing goes, to continue to use South Atlantic Pro Wrestling as our example, the source given (http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com) doesn't appear to be reliable by encyclopedic standards, but even if we accept it as truth it only gives two tiny slivers of information, specifically that George and two other people started it in "early 1990" but by July 1990 it had already changed names and ownership, meaning that it lasted some 6 months at best. It also says that the matches were held at places like high schools and drew miniscule crowds, in one case 42 people! Now, I've been to indy wrestling shows and they're a lot of fun, but come on, 42 people is a fraction of what I had last time I had a yard sale. I'm sure it was fun and some folks have fond memories and all, but some things are simply too obscure to ever reasonably be covered in an encyclopedia, and that's one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying because George Scott founded the promotion, the promotion is notable. My point is that the promotion is notable because it is supported by reliable sources per WP:RS. ProWrestlingHistory.com is used on over 1600 wrestling articles. Of course, even if the promotion was not notable then it could still be removed from the list. I could make a case for entries that unquestionably have reliable sources. Again, for an example, see my earlier response here and here. But this is not about the notability of individual entries. It is about the list as a whole. If your point is about the sourcing of this article then it should have been discussed on the talk page.
Is independent wrestling a notable topic? Would a list of notable promotions be appropriate for the main article? If so, then what happens if the list becomes too large? It is generally appropriate to split the article. I feel this article has enough notable independent promotions to justify such a list. Now according to WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists if a list has existing entries or can demonstrate notability then such a list is perfectly acceptable. Pointing out one or two entries is a content issue and has no bearing on whether the subject is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. I could see if there wasn't any evidence of notable promotions but there are 75 existing entries on the list alone. And WP:IDONTKNOWIT is hardly a defense if a significant number of promotions have evidence of notability. Why not check out the first cited referenced on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because ProWrestlingHistory is in articles doesn't make it reliable. It needs to have a proven fact checking system to be reliable. Nikki♥311 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Nikki, Starblind and Anma - you are seeing here why the IP is being disruptive. You make a point and he argues it without fail no matter what. I agree with the proposals made. !! Justa Punk !! 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point of my reply. The editor was arguing the notability of a specific entry because the source may fail WP:RS. I've proven that there are a number of un-linked article that do meet WP:RS. But this is not about whether or not a one reference to one particular entry meets WP:RS. This is about the notability of "the list itself" and if it meets WP:LIST not individual entries. Despite Justa Punk's comment, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm making a valid point. Nikki311, for instance, has only replied that ProWrestlingHistory.com may not be a reliable source. Fine. What about the other 199 references? What about, say, the very first cited reference on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the majority of them have the same issue...such as Solie's, Wrestling Titles, etc. After looking through the references, the only good ones are the book by Royal Duncan & Gary Will and the PWI Almanac. Everything else either isn't reliable or primary. As for the first reference (1wrestling.com), my computer warned me that it was an attack site, so my guess is it probably won't pass WP:RS either. Nikki♥311 05:11, 17 June 2010 (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.
More