Home • Search • Translate
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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Insurrextion (2003)

Insurrextion (2003) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill WWE special. Redirection to main article rejected by User:Galatz. Of the 7 references, only two do more than mention it in passing, and both of those are blow-by-blow plot expositions. There is not enough specific content to make a merge to WWE_Insurrextion unreasonable. I'd also like to get consensus on Insurrextion (2001) and Insurrextion (2002) while we're at it. Slashme ( talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Source review

  • "What are the features and benefits of having a WWE Network Subscription". help.wwe.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
Advertisement for WWE Network subscription; doesn't mention Insurrextion by name. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Doesn't mention the specific episode; mentions series in passing. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
How Stuff Works article about pro wrestling in general. Doesn't mention Insurrextion. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Episode entry on Cagematch.net. Just lists the contents. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Review on a Pro Wrestling review site. Doesn't make any claim that the show itself was notable in any way. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Recital of the plot of the episode on a Pro Wrestling site. Doesn't make any claim of notability. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Catalogue site that seems to list all WWE shows. Supports WP:ROTM status. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Firstly, it sounds like the nominator should have taken this to articles to merge rather than delete, but that is beside the point. Consensus has always been that all WWE pay-per-view events due to their nature and coverage are independently notable. Every single WWE pay-per-view outside of this series, had their own pages prior to their creation. His rationale given here [1] sounds to me like his biggest issue is that they are stubs, which is not reason for deletion, it just means I haven't finished expanding yet. Also there are several WP:RS that still mention these in more recent years [2] [3] [4]. - Galatz Talk 20:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The fact that other WWE pay-per-view events have their own articles has no bearing on the notability of these articles. The other sources you list also don't reach the standard required by the GNG:
Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. -- Slashme ( talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. This time in Spanish. -- Slashme ( talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Mentions the series in passing. -- Slashme ( talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Galatz Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has coverage in independent reliable sources. This is yet another disgusting case of people thinking that having coverage in reliable pro wrestling websites is somehow inferior to when a music website reviews an album or a film website reviews a film, (like the dismissal of PWTorch), it needs to die already on this website. A source being in Spanish also does not have any bearing on deletion, so it's nonsensical of the op to even mention it. ★Trekker ( talk) 06:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
My point was not that the source was in Spanish, rather that it was the same discussion as the previous source, but this time in Spanish. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Logic is flawed, "the article does not cliam notability" is not how that works, "notability" is a wikipedia guideline, not something stated in sources.  MPJ -DK  15:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The article has to make a credible claim of significance. It has to explain to the reader why it's not just another pay per view show sold on DVD. Why is it unusual or special? What impact has it had on broader culture? Which reliable sources discuss the topic, and how? The sources don't have to say "This topic is notable", but they have to say why it's not just a run-of-the mill item.
Also note the text from WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". Sure, the series as a whole meets the notability criteria, but each season? I'm just not seeing that here. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You also might want to read WP:BLUDGEON - Galatz Talk 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
So i meant the SOURCE articles, Kent claiming each article "Doesn't make a claim of notability" when reviewing each source. You Seem to not understand how it works.  MPJ -DK  13:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The source articles don't need to make a direct claim of notability, but they need to support a claim of notability in the Wikipedia article. So the Wiki article needs to say why the topic is significant, and the sources need to back that up. -- Slashme ( talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge There's a lot of terrible disambiguations here. Just having a year next to the name makes it overly ambiguous. (2003 event) would work better, same goes for all the similar articles. That said - simply nominating a single one of these articles for deletion won't accomplish anything besides confusing things, and I don't think it's so non notable that it should be totally wiped from Wikipedia, although having its own article is dubious. They should be nominated as a group. I think WP:ATD in this case would be to make a List of 2003 WWE pay-per-view events and merge them all into it, same with the other years. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Did you look at the other articles before suggesting that merge? That has to be the worst idea I have possibly ever heard. You want to merge approximately 491k bytes into one article, based on Category:2003 WWE pay-per-view events? And that is 2003, the later years are much more. WrestleMania 33 alone is 112k, and WrestleMania 34 is 103k, both already over the WP:SPLIT criteria by themselves.
In addition (2003 event) disambiguation is also a terrible suggestion. WP:ATDAB is clear that the disambiguation should be as concise as possible. Since every single page is about an event, the word event is not needed. In addition to this being the standard setup for EVERY wrestling event, hundreds upon hundreds of pages. - Galatz Talk 01:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
A perfect example of the problem is when you compare Judgment Day (2000) with Judgment Day (The Outer Limits). Both of them came out in 2000, but you wouldn't tell the difference from the disambiguations. Per WP:PRECISION, the disambiguations must at least say the type of article it is. A mass move is in order, preferably without leaving redirects due to the potential for confusion.
I didn't suggest merging ALL the articles and content. Only a small blurb for each, with the notable ones linking to their own article. It seems to me that there is an issue here where non notable wrestling events get an article simply because there is no place to put them otherwise, or due to an attempt at consistency. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 04:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
How does that make any sense? You're saying that the article should be kept because I've been too active in explaining the motivation for the deletion? That's got nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. You need to motivate your position that the article should be kept, and not merged to a summary article, by explaining how it passes the GNG. -- Slashme ( talk) 20:06, 25 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Insurrextion_(2003)&oldid=915704555"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE