Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Heavyweight Championship (XWA)

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. No consensus to delete these as a group. Individual articles can be renominated. Sandstein 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Heavyweight Championship (XWA)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports championships. The article relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above. "Championships" of regional wrestling promotions are not inherently notable and there's no sign of
WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

These are NOT "regional titles" - they are national titles of a sovereign state (the UK) defended on that country's mainstream national TV.Romomusicfan (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these ones at least:

This set of titles were (and still are) important and historic in the UK and were regularly defended on national network TV (ITV). Are sourced from respected reliable source (Wrestling-Titles.com) although some need this citing properly (will fix). It's frankly astonishing that anyone could suggest that these titles should be deleted and it smacks of a bad faith attempt to bury British wrestling history (actually, looking at Sportsfan 1234's edit history, it looks like he/she is an Olympic Wrestling fan with an axe to grind about worked pro wrestling.) Romomusicfan (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, Delete NWA Scotland, British Flyweight, XWA British Heavyweight and All England titles - these four are latterday concoctions without the history and public awareness of the other titles. Undecided about the Commonwealth Junior Heavyweight title - depends on how much prestige it has gained in Japan. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ones identified for keeping by Romomusicfan. Like millions of Brits, I grew up in the 70s/80s watching these championships being fought over on Dave Finlay, Dynamite Kid and Danny Boy Collins. It is absolutely STUPID and RIDICULOUS to suggest that these are non-notable regional titles that should be deleted. If anything, more of the European and World titles should have pages of their own.195.89.49.25 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "I remember watching this" is not a verifiable indication of secondary coverage. GNG requires verifiable secondary coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to constitute acceptable verifiable secondary coverage for pro wrestling titles, Eggishorn? The Wrestling Titles website seems to be considered a reliable and acceptable source for most pro wrestling titles pages. Maybe we should get some people in from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to give us their opinions on what constitutes an acceptable source? Romomusicfan (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into Wrestling Titles, it uses mostly user-provided data with little (if any) evidence of editorial selectivity. In other words, it does not meet the qualifications of
WP:RS. What is required is independent coverage in RS, and verifiability. No such sources have been adduced for these titles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So in that case, should an AfD be started about WCW World Heavyweight Championship and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions? The only sources on either are (1) the same Wrestling Titles site (2) the website for WWE which now owns the defunct WCW brand and so is hardly independent? Come to that, looking at the WWE Championship and List of WWE Champions pages uses those same sources plus a host of unofficial fan-run news services that - to anyone unfamiliar with them - would appear to have Unreliable written all over them. And that's for just about the most Notable pro wrestling title on the planet!

Problem seems to me that you are going against
WikiProject Professional Wrestling rather than trying to pick off random titles/sets of titles/companies? Romomusicfan (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S.Have posted about this AfD on the Wikiproject's talk page Romomusicfan (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A) Editorial consensus of a project has no standing to overturn notability standards. Project-based SNG's are intended to supplement, not replace GNG. B) I see no indication that mention on Wrestling-titles.com has been accepted as a SNG for wrestling promotions. C) The rest of your argument is
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Excuse my ignorance but what is an "SNG"? MPJ-DK 20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly question nominating all of these at the same time. Some of them might be notable and some others might not be.
talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree - and see my vote post above for my suggestions of which should really be kept and which are probably okay for the chop. Romomusicfan (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in its current format. A huge bulk AFD like this makes notabiliy discussions impossible to maintain. Some of these I agree are not notable and others clearly are and some are in between, having ONE discussion of all of these is not going to get a constructive result. Individual AFD or much smaller groups please. MPJ-DK 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Looking at the criteria for deletion it's not about the sources in the article only, but the coverage that exists in reliable sources. Looking at all the championships that Romomusicfan listed I can confirm that each of them has their own section in Royal Duncan and Gary Will's "Wrestling title histories: professional wrestling champions around the world from the 19th century to the present" book. Duncan and Will are cited over and over again as being subject matter experts in professional wrestling championships through the year 2000 and that book is considered a bible to wrestling historians. Yes, someone would have to find sources for the post-2000 title changes, but that's a matter of sourcing, not proving notability and thus not a deletion criteria. MPJ-DK 21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Appeared weekly on national television. Why is there even a question about those? I think the nominator really need to step away from pro wrestling articles altogether. Their pattern of edits show a decided POV. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the votes of confidence for my choices! Perhaps what is really needed to silence the likes of Sportsfan 1234 and Eggishorn - since this is ostensibly the source of their gripe - is some sourcing to establish the titles' claims to notability (based on how the titles were defended and changed hands on a high profile national TV show - a far higher media profile than most US regions enjoyed at the time, in fact). The most obvious source that could be cited are the actual broadcasts as well as TVTimes listings for matches. Many of these matches and title changes are on Youtube which is now regarded as an acceptable source. ITV Wrestling is a very good site for listings and even has the relevant Youtube videos embedded - even if the site itself is not a satisfactory source, it should make a good directory for identifying citeable sources. It's even got a title changes page with televised changes in Bold. We don't need to cite very single change, just get a few examples for an Assertation of Notability in the opening paragraphs of each article.

Only problem areas are the British Open Tag Team title which was crated just after ITV coverage finished but nonetheless has changed hands on national TV (Superflies beating the Liverpool Lads on
BBC2) and the Mid Heavyweight and Middleweight titles which stayed stuck around one wrestler each - the former around Mike Marino until his death in 1981, the latter around Brian Maxine until circa 2000 when TWA set up a new version. Still, both of them appeared with the belts on TV and may have made some succesful defences which may suffice. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all. We can split hairs on some belts later, but this blanket "These all suck" nomination isn't helping anyone. For the record I also think out of the picked out list, the All England Championship is notable, as it was defended on FWA (which had a TV show) and ROH on an international cross promoted PPV.
Crisis.E X E 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to say that the old British wrestling TV slot on which Mountevans titles were defended (ITV on a Saturday afternoon just before the football results) was a rather higher profile piece of TV coverage than the FWA's show (local cable TV). It was also produced by ITV independently of the promoters whereas AFAIK FWA's show was simply filmed privately by the promotion in question and then sold on to the TV channel like old regional TV wrestling shows in the US in the 70s/80s. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and renominate in smaller bundles if necessary. Enough of these are notable (per MPJ-DK's rationale) to spoil this batch.LM2000 (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolute LUNACY trying to call the old British titles on World Of Sport on Sautrday afternoon Not Notable!!! Whatever next? - Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks not notable wrestlers cos they never wrestled for WWF or WCW? 2.24.71.95 (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, we all get the point that on a visceral level, certainly for anyone British and above a certain age (or failing that, culturally informed about the Britain of that era) the notability of these titles is self-evident. What's really needed however is to not give the likes of Sportsfan and Eggishorn an excuse for labelling them as non notable. And that's where, moving forward, a proper referenced assertation of notability for each title article in its opening section will come in. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh and Haystacks did do a short spell in WCW near the end of his career as the Loch Ness Monster, but the less said about that, the better.) Romomusicfan (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I like "...the likes of...Eggishorn." It makes me feel like I'm part of
some secret cabal. Wait a minute, did the secret cabal induct me without telling me? How would I know? In all seriousness, 2.24.71.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), while it certainly isn't contradictory to be both a wrestling fan (or fan of anything else) and a Wikipedian, looking at an AfD debate solely through a fan's eyes generally does not help anyone. While fans should be best-placed to indicate why a part of their field of interest meets notability guidelines, they need to convince other editors that the article subject does in fact meets those guidelines. I don't see "I remember it from Saturday afternoons" in any notability guideline, but that doesn't mean you can't improve the article. Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage? Any wrestling new sites? Anything? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
>Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage?

Since you mention it, Eggishorn, I did in fact mention TVTimes which contained full listings of matches televised by ITV as well as many feature articles on wrestling. I also mentioned tertiarty source site ITV Wrestling which reproduces all of these listings and from which accurate citations of the original TVTimes listings can be extrapolated. (I also mentioned that a good many of the title match broadcasts are available for scrutiny on Youtube, which I gather is these days considered an acceptable Wiki source.)
Okay, you've indicated that a listings magazine would be an acceptable source; in that I can equip each page with a basic Assertion Of Notability relating to the ITV coverage, supported by examples of coverage (particularly title changes) in the form of TVTimes citations and/or the actual transmissions (supported by Youtube). If you will confirm that this is acceptable to you, then by all means I'll get to work on it. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I have, by way of a specimen, kitted out the British Lightweight Championship article with an assertion of notability backed up with references to both TV broadcasts directly (two of these supplemented with Youtube video) and TVTimes listings. Romomusicfan (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added formatting to the references and also added them to the title changes in the table so they are sourced in both locations. MPJ-DK 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cheers, if Eggishorn is satisfied with this, I can start doing this for some of the other pages. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have done it for the British Welterweight Championship too. Romomusicfan (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is all true. I completely disapprove of mass AFD nominations like these but if the titles are indeed notable there should be work put into improving them by the people who think that they should stay.
talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have been doing some source work on the titles that were created prior to 2000 based on information in a book that is considered a reliable source. The book ("Wrestling Title histories") has a section on each of the championships. I am working on double checking the EUropean and the Commonwealth championships for corretness but they do have sections in the book as well. MPJ-DK 03:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment British Empire/Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship is a bit of a mess, amalgamating various championships together without making it clear etc. so it' making souring problematic as it's bits and pieces from all over. It really needs to be reworked, which I'd be happy to do, although if it get deleted I guess it'd be wasted effort MPJ-DK 21:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is wny I was rather hoping Eggishorn might come back and offer some feedback on the sourcing work I've done on the Brit LWt and Brit Wwt pages. As for the Commonwealth title, your best bet is to round up some articles on Count Bartelli that mention him as champion, for example this. Also check some of his TV matches from 1970s UK to see if commentator Kent Walton mentions the title. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this he was acknowledged in TVTimes as Commonwealth champion for his two fall win over Pete Roberts in 1976 and it may even have been a title defence. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done! added these Romomusicfan (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and I am not the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable. The admin who will close this is perfectly capable of deciding whether YouTube videos are sufficiently reliable evidence of notability for these wrestling titles. I have no interest in continuing to be the bête noire of British wrestling fandom. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
BBC2 from 1994 and a detailed description of another title change in Simon Garfield's The Wrestling - have added all this to article. Romomusicfan (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
Dave Finlay regaining the belt from Chic Cullen in 1987 appears on early 90s VHS release Tag Teams and Tearaways. These could be mentioned in references on that article. Also worth mentioning that the latter title change took up an entire edition of the standalone wrestling show on ITV. Romomusicfan (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Done - both of them! Romomusicfan (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also there are some lengthier wrestling features in TVTimes with material about championships. One 1968 essay focusses heavily on Billy Robinson in his role as incumbent double crown British/European Heavyweight Champion. A 1977 two part interview with recently retired George Kidd includes a table of British, European and World Champions - I believe there is a scan of this on a UK wrestling history site somewhere. (Intriguingly it recognises [WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino as World Heavyweight Champion - probably on account of his 1976 Shea Stadium defence against Stan Hansen being included as part of public closed circuit live screenings of the Ali vs Inoki boxer/wrestler match). There was also a lengthy pullout section in 1980 to mark 25 years of ITV coverage which may include championship details Romomusicfan (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Mid-Heavyweight Championship - Found the article and added linked reference - also found onscreen ITV acknowledgement of Mike Marino as champion. Added both references. Romomusicfan (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
European Heavyweight Championship Added reference to the same article plus reference to 1967 TV broadcast featuring Billy Robinson announced as incumbent double crown British/European champion.

Right then, that's a fully referenced Assertion of Notability for all the articles I voted to keep.Romomusicfan (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Heavyweight_Championship_(XWA)&oldid=1142176328"