Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikara Season 11

Add links
Source: 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 delete. Whether it is a TV series, DVD series, or something else entirely, the consensus (except for sockpuppets) seems to be that it isn't suitable as a standalone article in this format. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chikara Season 11

Chikara Season 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All in-universe summary of a

WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not even a television series. It's a DVD series of events from 2002 to 2013, and four internet pay-per-views from 2011 to 2013. As far as I know, Chikara never made it to TV. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In regards to TV, CHIKARA used to have a TV show that aired in Italy. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a detailed summary of everything that occurred during
    CHIKARA's Season 11. CHIKARA is an valid entry is this Wikipedia, and I've linked to it. Also, please advise how this irreparable? It has appropriate links and factual information that can be proven through those links. If you are going to make claims such as this, I feel that you should give more specific information as to what is wrong with the entry. In addition, while you may not be a wrestling fan, that does not make this article "useless". This history will an invaluable source for those researching CHIKARA and it's history, especially now that the company has recently returned. Also, if this is just all in-universe TV Season recap, then why haven't the Season recaps for The Simpsons and other TV shows been marked for deletion as well?--BabsChikara (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please stay on-topic. The non-deletion of other articles is only a valid argument when those articles have actually undergone AfD discussions, in which case they count as precedents.
As for the sources, there is exactly one non-affiliated source, which is simply not enough per
WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The sources used have been established as valid and reliable, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Said sources have also been used and referenced on the other articles that summarize CHIKARA seasons, which, not counting this one, currently number seven in all and have not been objected to in this way. In fact, if you look at the original editor's talk page, they have received proper guidance in the establishment of valid and reliable sources from another editor versed in the subject regarding one of their other articles, and had satisfactorily corrected their use of inappropriate sources. If this is regarding the length of the article, I do believe that it could be pared down given time, but I would hate to lose the information contained within, as others would certainly find it useful and it would be a great resource for people trying to become acquainted with the subject material. RaveBlack (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is exactly one third-party source here, pwponderings.com. The rest are simply the DVDs of this season. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the style, it's the content. The key here is that the Simpsons article covers real world non fictional topics, while this does not. There doesn't appear to be anything salvageable here. It's all written as a fan summary rather than an encyclopedia article. --Daniel(talk) 17:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am in process of editing it and adding the third party sources. The Simpson does do that and I do feel that it belongs here no doubt, but that wasn't the original argument. CHIKARA also covers real world, non-fictional topics as well, along with linking it to other aspects of culture. It also belongs here. I have no issues with the criticism for style and sources. Those can and are being corrected; however, the article should have been marked as such and not for deletion.--BabsChikara (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: The page has been edited and the third party sources added. Thank you. --BabsChikara (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Television-related discussions? Nope, more like DVD-related discussions. Since when has Chikara been on TV? From 2002, it has been you watch live or buy the DVD. From 2011 to 2013, there were four internet pay-per-views released. Since when has CHIKARA made it to TV? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all the smartmarkvideo DVD references. They only show that "the DVD exists" and what matches occurred. There's no match reports which means we don't even know what happened in the match or even who won the match. There's no point to those sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of live events and it is available for live streaming through Neon Alley, which is an online anime streaming service that is not run by the company. Being on TV is not necessarily a requirement for notability or measure of importance. --BabsChikara (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that I had erroneously assumed this was a TV series. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, being on "free" TV is a measure of importance, because it reaches a far wider audience than having to purchase each DVD and internet pay-per-view. This week's TV episode of WWE Raw is an example. It was watched live by 4.849 million viewers in the United States alone. WWE's pay-per-views like Survivor Series (2013) receive only 179,000 buys. WWE's most popular PPV, WrestleMania 29, did not even receive 1.1 million buys. Things that reach a wider audience are more important and notable, because in turn they will receive more coverage. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's the actual number of viewers as established by an independent source that establishes notability, not the medium itself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Under the Hood, Chikara's third ever iPPV held in December 2012, was watched live by 525 fans. Meanwhile it drew 1025 iPPV buys. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might I say I'm discussing with BabsChikara as to how to improve her edits in Wikipedia. It remains to be seen if this article can be saved. The article currently does have
WP:PW endorsed reliable sources for event reports - Pro Wrestling Torch and PWInsider. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamed (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fancruft. I actually really like Chikara, but these articles (this and the other season articles, which should also be nominated) just aren't going to work on Wikipedia. EVEN if they were completely rewritten, Chikara events, outside of their iPPVs, are just not notable. They get virtually no coverage from any major wrestling sites considered reliable by the WikiProject, which is why you have to go to bottom of the barrel sites like Cagesideseats and PWPonderings for results. And if a site like PWTorch posts results, they usually just post the results of the matches and don't touch the stoylines, which is basically what these articles are all about.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, and CBS Local are considered reliable sources. They are present in the article. Folgertat (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-trivial Newspaper sources such as the Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, the Chicago Sun Times, and others and news sources such as CBS Local that were added since the beginning of this afd make this article worthy of a clear keep. All of these sources meet the requirements for reputable sources. A subject does not get covered in the Chicago Sun-Times, CBS, and many other sources if it has not established notability in the mainstream world. The argument that was presented by Ribbon Salminen disregards the fact that there are almost 10 mainstream newspaper sources that covered this subject. The quality of the writing in the article can be changed and is therefore not a valid argument for deletion or keep, as is the basis of the argument that was presented by Daniel before these newspaper sources were added. The presence or lack of presence of verifiable sources can not be changed and is a valid argument for deletion or keep. The sources either are there or are not there, and in this case, many mainstream sources are there. There are almost 10 newspaper sources with non-trivial coverage, which is more than enough to satisfy the notability requirements. It is worth noting that some of these sources even pertain to some of the less significant events of the season, such as The Reading Eagle covering Benefit for Baseballtown Charities. That event was not as significant as, for instance, King of Trios, and it is one thing for the more significant events of the season, such as King of Trios, to receive newspaper coverage. When even the less significant events obtain newspaper coverage, you know that the subject meets notability requirements. The administrator who handles this discussion should also keep in mind that the first delete vote came before the newspaper sources were added and the notability of this subject was clearly established. Folgertat (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this user is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FolgertatLM2000 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I basically rewrote most of the article to improve the article's writing and I added new sources to Portland, Maine's Press Herald, Portland, Maine's The Phoenix, the Philadelphia Mausoleum of Contemporary Art, two Geekadelphia articles, and two Philebrity articles. There should now be plenty of sources.

The main objection to this article and reason for deletion was that is was not note-worthy and it has been proven through the required third-party citations that it is. In addition, it adds additional context and content to an already existing entry, furthering an understanding of the subject matter already deemed worthy of the Wikipedia. The editors of this article have, at every suggestion, met the criteria and suggestions set forth here and on talk pages to show the worthiness of this subject. I am asking that the deletion tag be removed and the article be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.--BabsChikara (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little premature to close this AfD yet. The article still needs some work. All links, for example to Geekadelphia and Strathroy Age Dispatch, should be converted to references. All references should clearly state the publisher. This will help, not hurt, the article's chances of surviving. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the references are in this article and that they document that this topic is important enough to have an article about it is what is important. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate that it needs work and your suggestions will be included in an upcoming edit. However, I think it's been proven that this entry is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia through the use of valid third party sources and the deletion tag should be removed and replaced with the appropriate editing tags.--BabsChikara (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the sources only go to show that Chikara as a promotion is notable. But again, this is not about deleting the main

an indiscriminate collection of information, something Wikipedia specifically claims it is not. Taking only the important parts of ALL seasons and putting them together into a bit at Chikara (professional wrestling)#History is something that should be considered.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note:
sockpuppet of Folgertat (talk · contribs
) and has been indefinitely blocked.

Your second argument is that the article is an indiscriminate list of information, as explained at

WP:DISCRIMINATE presents. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Firstly, please
    assume good faith and watch your tone. Do not accuse anyone of "sad puffery." Secondly, as already stated, the title of the article doesn't matter. What matters is the subject of the article, which is the history of CHIKARA in 2012, and the importance of that topic has been more than established. The person that created this article already addressed your point that the news publications don't show that the topic deserves an article by saying that they wouldn't have talked about the topic if the year wasn't important enough to have an article. She wrote, "If Season 11's events weren't notable, then would not receive any type of media reception at all." It doesn't matter if it is a caption because it is a part of the article. The fact is that it specifically mentions that particular wrestler. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Familiarize yourself with
    puffery. If you and the rest of the suspected socks continue to respond to us, then please indent your responses correctly. It's making this discussion very difficult to read.LM2000 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment That is not accurate. The results were mostly removed. The point that the article only establishes notability for CHIKARA in general has already been addressed. As starship.paint stated, addressing why the sources do not refer to "Season 11" would assist in establishing notability for the season itself, and that has been done. That notability has been established already. It passes numerous guidelines. It establishes notability for the season. Your argument should be rooted in Wikipedia policies rather than in opinion. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

          • Wait a minute - it just occurred to me... notability for the company, not the season... if this is not a television show, then why would it have seasons? Anyway, there are apparently so many reliable sources in the article right? How many mention the term "Chikara Season 11"? Or just "Season 11"? Would the editors who have added the sources reply on this, as you are more familiar with them. This will help to establish notability for the season itself. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the title of this article should have something to do with the history of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to Season 11, the fact is that the importance of this topic has been established. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has more than enough
    reliable references that are independent of CHIKARA Season 11 and that discuss it in a significant manner. and it has verifiable material. That is what it needs in order to warrant its own article and it has them.Whitescorp34 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note:
sockpuppet of Folgertat (talk · contribs
) and has been indefinitely blocked.
facepalm... sigh... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I generally don't get involved in these types of discussions at all. RaveBlack (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you have never gotten involved in a discussion before this.LM2000 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd have known that there would be some kind of witch hunt involved, I would've stayed away from this one too. I believed the article had merit, therefore I commented. I have given my reasons why I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor elsewhere. RaveBlack (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a witch hunt. I haven't voted yet, and I find it suspicious. Let's wait for the results. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the results are in. Fortunately RaveBlack was innocent all along. The others were indeed sockpuppets though.LM2000 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance the votes look even. Most of the keep votes are still extant because the sockpuppet case involving those voters is still ongoing. I'm sure this is why MrScorch6200 relisted.LM2000 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article is relatively new, and BabsChikara might have needed some tips on editing TV articles, this and the others listed here should be merged into a more succinct List article. — Wyliepedia 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse Wyliepedia's opinion. I'd prefer for all the seasons to be merged into perhaps a "History of Chikara" article, with the subsections being each year. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - yes, there are sources out there, which are included in the article. But even so, does Chikara need to have an individual article on each season (each yerar?) It is really debatable whether the availability of sources point towards the notability of Chikara itself or does it point notability to Chikara Season 11? If it's the latter, then how many of those non-primary sources even mention "Chikara Season 11"? I believe this article and the rest of the season articles (Chikara Season One etc) should be blown up. Then, we can start over by having a new article called "History of Chikara", which would be a condensed version of all the season articles. The new article can exist due to the notability of Chikara itself. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:12, 23 February 2014 (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/Chikara_Season_11&oldid=1162219534"