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, opinion split on whether to keep or merge. Discussion can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico[edit]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico (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 !! 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have a vested interest in this. You'd better review WP:COI. My claim is not misleading. It's fact. Just look at the list. It tries to list everything. This fails WP:ADVERT on the grounds that the listing serves no purpose other than advertising the promotions that are around and were around. !! Justa Punk !! 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could instead stick to the facts and discuss this like two mature adults? Let's look at the list. What exactly is on here that constiutes advertising? The only information on here is the name of the promotion, the founder/promoter (if notable), the general location, years its been active and the official website. That's it. Nothing that that wouldn't be included an actual article. In fact that could be a description of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. There is no contact information, upcoming events or anything remotely close to what is described in WP:ADVERT. Maybe you could also explain what would be the point of advertising "promotions that are no longer around"?

As for your other issue, that this is attempt to list "every" lucha libre promotion in existance, I don't think you realize just how many lucha libre promotions are in Mexico right now. Or how many there have been in the past 80 years. There are, at present, 17 entries with almost half that of articles already on Wikipedia. Even if these were removed, there's more then enough promotions to justify a list. However, I think the recently added references support that the "vast majority" are notable. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have only proven existence. If the promotions were notable, where are the individual articles on them? Clearly you're a wrestling fan who wants it all on Wikipedia. This site doesn't work that way, and trying to put junk on here - well what amounts to junk under WP rules - is in effect advertising the promotion. A direct violation of WP:ADVERT. The list is already available on the page List of professional wrestling promotions. The list has to be NOTABLE - and it's not and that's why it's here for deletion discussion. !! Justa Punk !! 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again you continue to repeat the idea that because a promotion does not exist on Wikipedia, it is not notable. You still refuse to acknowedge the sources provided or any of the points I've raised above. Does, for example, Rey Misterio, Jr.'s book Rey Mysterio: Behind the Mask "only prove existence" for Promo Azteca? Several of the un-linked promotions run monthy PPVs on Mexican television. Others are owned by notable promoters or luchadores. There are multiple independent third party reliable sources. Instead of continuing your personal attacks towards me you can demonstrate why these fail WP:N? Or how this fails WP:LIST? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to prove your case. I have already proven my point. Yes, it only proves it's existence, not it's notability. Just because Rey Mysterio worked for them doesn't automatically make the promotion notable. Any church hall based promotion with a ring with any money could hire whoever they wanted. It doesn't prove notability at all. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound rude, however, you haven't actually "made a case" so much as you've repeatedly asserted an opinion (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Also you may want to re-read the chapter I linked to. It's almost five pages long and quite detailed. Roughly half of Asistencia Asesoría y Administración's roster left with Konnan to form the promotion and had a working relationship with World Championship Wrestling well into the late-1990s. It also had a contract with TV Azteca. I'd hardly call it a "church hall based promotion". The source cited clearly meets WP:RS (as do the other 6 cited references). 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you be a bit more specific as to how it fails WP:IINFO? In my opinion, this is a listing of "notable" lucha libre promotions, not every promotion, and is supported by multiple books and news articles. Even if every un-linked promotion on here wasn't, there are still 7 WP articles here that justify a list under WP:LIST. And also, regarding WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTDIR, what information is here that isn't on, say, List of National Wrestling Alliance territories or List of airlines of the United States? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the seven promotions mentioned are already listed on List of professional wrestling promotions. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but, and again per WP:LIST, it is perfectly reasonable to create a more specific list. Lucha libre organizations are distinct from American professional wrestling as are puroresu organizations in Japan. That such a list might be created is not all that unreasonable as you make it sound. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have some other opinions here please? !! Justa Punk !! 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of contacting one of your colleagues from WP:PW. If he feels as you do then I'll have no further objections. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MPJ, the reason for the COI view is in the manner that the IP is pushing this. If you look through his or her arguments, it smacks of a determination to have this listing including for no real reason other than for the heck of it. The constant argument is that Wikipedia "needs" this. Why? I find such a point lacking in NPOV, and where there's a lack of a NPOV, COI thoughts inevitably follow. Perhaps, on thinking of it now - perhaps I should be querying the IP on NPOV rather than COI, but I'd be lying if I said I still have COI suspicions on this.
Also, if there is major coverage in Mexico of the promotions that presently don't have articles, they should be created. I should point out that my point here is not core to the AfD. The core is WP:NOTDIR (and the double handling) and I pick up the point made on one of these four AfD's (I think it was the US one) that WP:IINFO applies as well. The fed notability issue is related but not core. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well if NOTDIR and INFO are your main point we're good, it's not an indiscriminat directory of the 75 or so feds active in Mexico right now, but a reduced list of those who would actually be worth mentioning and it does not fit any of the other things on the list of NOTDIR either. And I'm glad to see you volunteer to help create articles, very helpful of you, just not relevant to the AFD.  MPJ -DK  05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I'd be creating any articles. I can't. I'm in Australia and I have no clue as to where to even start looking for sources. A reduced list already exists on List of professional wrestling promotions so it would be double handling (which I also mentioned in the nomination). I disagree with you because this list has no purpose other than simply being a list. That - if I remember my dictionary correctly - is a definition of "indiscriminant". At least the existing page has a purpose, and that's to enhance Wikipedia itself by listing the promotions that have WP articles. This list's only conceivable purpose is to promote the promotions - and that's advertising/spam - which is definitely part of #4 of WP:NOTDIR (IIRC). !! Justa Punk !! 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And i live in Denmark yet i do create articles, not a point. By your logic every article that was created today was only notable from today on forward, that's just illogical.  MPJ -DK  05:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said there was illogical in itself! How on earth do you draw that conclusion from what I said?? *confused* !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what MPJ-DK means is that he lives in Denmark but regularly works on lucha libre articles despite living in another continent. Also your claim that articles that do not exist on WP yet are, by definition, not-notable. It follows then that an article on, say actor Steven Wickham, is not notable because his article doesn't exist. But if its created tomorrow...well it's quite a paradox wouldn't you agree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.  MPJ -DK  05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I think I've been perfectly clear and concise in my objections. I don't understand why you believe I'm "pushing" the issue "for the heck of it" simply because I object to your reasoning. Because we have opposing views, this constitutes NPOV on my part? While you may suspect my motives, justified or not, accusing me of them outright without proof is presumptuous and unethical. Nor, as you claim, have I said Wikipedia "needs" this list. I put forth a logical argument for why I feel this and the other lists are notable per Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RED, WP:LIST). Or more specifically that it does not qualify for the reasons you specified (i.e. WP:NOTDIR, WP:ADVERT). Your defence thus far has been to discredit me by "attacking the person" and asserting what seems to be your personal point of view (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Can you refer to a Wikipedia guideline that specifically supports this? A listing of notable lucha libre promotions, or for that matter US independent promotions, supported by reliable sources is not an indiscriminate listing (a list of "wrestling promotions whose wrestlers have red hair" is a more appropriate example). In your reply to MPJ-DK's comments you say notability is not "a core issue". Was not your exact phrase in proding this article "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes many promotions that fail WP:N"? 71.184.40.33 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. He listed two points for proding the article: WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. He did not, however, mention WP:ADVERT or WP:IINFO as a concern. At the time of the prod, given those were the specific concerns I addressed after removing it (by adding reliable sources as you've already acknowledged), would it not be reasonable to assume that these were the main issues? If there's some kind of disclaimer that needs to be on the article, I did not see one on List of National Wrestling Alliance territories, List of airlines of the United States or WP:LIST, perhaps someone may choose to "be bold"? I (and MPJ-DK) explained why WP:IINFO does not apply to this list. Can you explain why this list does not qualify for WP:LIST? Or why this would not be a legitimte stand-alone list? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to create an airline? Very hard. Only a select few can do it. Ditto "winning" ANY world championship (let alone CMLL). A building has no direct advertising potential as such.
Now - how hard is it to create a wrestling promotion? Easy. All you need is a ring, a venue, some money and some other trinkets and you're in business. See where I'm going here? Little promotions are always looking for ANY way to advertise cheeply - and Wikipedia has been the target of such things. Hence the existence of WP:ADVERT. That's why we have notability rules. The NWA doesn't let just any old fed join up. They have standards to maintain. Now if they DID do that, then I would question the notability of the NWA Territories list. But they don't. !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL these days NWA let's anyone who pays the fee join, don't just make up stuff. Also so what if there are backyard feds? they're not on this list, so what if there are small time feds that are not notable?? they're not on the list. All entries on the list are notable enough that they could have their own article. It's not a valid argument for deletion since it does not pertain to the list in question.  MPJ -DK  05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not qualify for WP:ADVERT because it contains absolutely zero information which blatantly advertises these promotions. You have had many opportunities to provide a specific example. As I have already pointed out to you this list actually contains "less" information then Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. Would any the information listed in the template be considered advertisement? This list does not contain contact information, upcoming events, or any other information that would be considered promoting these organizations. Because of this, it also is disqualified from WP:NOTDIR for the same reasons.

I also think you're missing the point of why I pointed out the NWA and US Airlines list. You contend that lists are not allowed to have entries in which Wikipedia does not have an article for them. This, you claim, is because if they were notable they would already have an article. This list (and the others you've nominated) essentially covers the exact same information that is on the two lists I've pointed out. It apparently "violates" the same polices you claim warrant this articles deletion.

Both you and Mal Case have made some interesting, if somewhat questionable, claims.

  1. Mexico has "a very blurred line between proper feds and backyard". (From what I read here the Mexican athletic commissions are quite strict. Promo Azteca was heavily fined for its "hardcore" elements. And isn't backyard wrestling an American phenomenon? Even so, can you prove that any of the promotions listed are "backyard feds"?)
  2. Establishing a wrestling promotion is "easy" compared to an airline. (Fair enough. What about a List of convenience stores?)

Perhaps you can cite some sources to support your statements. Given the number of resources I've added to this list, wouldn't that be a fair request to do so in this discussion? And to Mal Case, it's recommended by WP:LIST to use ((Stand-alone list)) instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.42.165 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard wrestling is worldwide. No exceptions. It's the nature of the business. I know there are backyard feds in Australia for example. The list of convenience stores is in fact in trouble under WP:IINFO so in fact bringing that up helps my case for deletion. Besides, that speaks of chains and not individual stores. A chain would have strict rules, and besides even setting up such a store would be harder than setting up a wrestling promotion. Remember that there are very few countries that regulate pro wrestling. In Australia, only the state of New South Wales has a regulatory body. There is no federal body. I don't doubt what you say about Mexico's controlling body, but that still doesn't stop "tin-pot" feds from popping up.
Why should I source my statements? This is a discussion based on opinion per WP rules. Trying to challenge my opinion outside of the rules reveals a NPOV issue with you. You are clearly determined to retain this list no matter what to the point of WP:IAR. I oppose that view point and you are clearly not allowing me to do so by cherry picking my valid points to pieces. You've said all that needs to be said as have I. This is my last statement to you on this AfD. We are getting nowhere and the last thing either of us want right now is a no consensus result. We need other opinions (aside from MPJ) and this AfD is being short circuited by your long winded comments that will make others think TL;DR and not even get involved. Well done. I think there may even be a rule against doing that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a subjective statement, say Promo Azteca was the most popular promotion in Mexico in 1996, unless I give a source to support this statement then this is based on my personal point of view not an established fact (e.g. the US has 50 states, the Earth is round, etc.). To do otherwise is intentionally misleading. You say "backyard feds" are worldwide? Fine. Are any of the promotions on this list "backyard feds"? If there are then please name one. Otherwise, its irrelevant to the discussion.

Your comments about the article are, once again, misleading. The convenience store article is not so much "in trouble", as if it had been proded or nominated for AFD, so much as it had been tagged for cleanup. Note the editor felt the list need to be cleaned up not deleted and allowed considerable time to do so. That was my point to bringing up this article. I can point out lists for restaurants and other "small businesses" that are allowed on Wikipedia (including GA and FL-grade lists). You say my comments are "long winded" (I'll take that as constructive criticism rather than a personal attack). That is also your opinion. I believe I'm being thorough as possible. Some people find that helpful. Others may find it annoying. Does that mean I have a conflict of interest or a hidden agenda? If you'll notice, there hasn't been a great deal of activity here. I also have the right to correct someone if there "vote" is based on an incorrect belief to points I have refuted earlier in the discussion (e.g. "this is being used as a business directory" or "this is an indiscriminate listing of "every" US promotion ever"). If you've paid attention to anything I've said here or elsewhere, my stance it the exact opposite of the "ignore all rules" policy. My main argument is that the policies you cite are being misapplied and ignore other basic policies (WP:LIST and WP:RED). Every argument I've made has clearly refuted your points. I've been specific as to how WP:LIST and WP:RED apply. Why do you consider this "nit picking" or "cherry picking" your arguments? Even Mal Case has admitted I bring up "a fair point". I should also point out I not only took the initiative of getting a third-party opinion I even went to someone from your own wikiproject. I even agreed to withdraw from this discussion if he decided to side with you. Is this really an act of sabotage? You claim what I'm doing is in bad faith (see [1], [2]) and you "think there may even be a rule against doing that". But doesn't Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions apply here? 71.184.42.120 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly, may I ask, am I guilty of? I think I've made many valid points in this discussion. Your statement seems to imply that I, and Justa Punk, are acting in bad faith. Because this discussion has become "too long to read", somehow we've "hijacked" this discussion and our points (right or wrong) are invalid? Again, I point to Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. Per WP:SNOW, can you explain how I have engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, overly long comments are bureaucratic behaviour by default. You only need to be brief, link the rules and leave it at that. But you haven't. Pretty simple I would have thought. I agree with Ainslie about relisting this to get a proper consensus, but when it is I'll be voting KEEP. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand I am being penalized because my comments are "too long to read"? I am not a professional writer. If my "writing style" isn't all that particularly engaging, or even interesting, it's certainly not intentional. In reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I was led to believe that citing policy without specifing why is discouraged in AFD discussions. 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:35, 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\ 08:35, 15 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