Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurrextion (2003)

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 keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Insurrextion (2003)

Insurrextion (2003) (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)

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
]
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. GalatzTalk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 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
    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 - GalatzTalk 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
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. - GalatzTalk 01:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A perfect example of the problem is when you compare
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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Insurrextion_(2003)&oldid=915704555"