Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 September 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Courcelles 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards

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

There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Referenced information was added to the article to establish topic notability. Furthermore, Per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for wrestlers, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I accept that article does not contradict
WP:GNG), which is to be expected from a subjective award given by a minor newsletter. In short, the subject matter is insufficiently notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete--while as a directory of awards there is nothing inherently wrong here, the awards themselves do not seem to have the coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Yaksar. Some awards are notable and can become the subject of a good list. But this doesn't have the sources to do it. Dzlife (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WON Awards are considered the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication. I should also point out that the list is, in fact, fully referenced. Each Awards issue of the Observer includes a complete history of the awards. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to view it, but I have double checked everything and they are referenced. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but who exactly considers these to be "the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication" and is there any evidence for it? As far as the citations, Wrestling Observer counts as a primary source (i.e. Meltzer is publicizing his own awards). I don't own either of the books cited but the SlamSports citation is merely a passing mention of a wrestler having won an award (i.e. a trivial reference), not an article about the awards themselves. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:23, 20 September 2011 (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.