- 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. No references have been presented during this discussion which show notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Funk Masters of Wrestling
- Funk Masters of Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only sources are primary or from wrestling databases with no criteria for inclusion (and therefore do not establish notability). Nikki♥ 311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT states is our guideline for this. I believe the number of tag team championships won by the group would qualify under #3. - Galatz Talk 14:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree if they'd held notable championships in more than one major promotion to satisfy "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I think arguing that holding a few championships in an independent promotion satisfies "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" is stretching. Nikki♥ 311 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't really see an issue. More sourcing is needed, but it's hardly a classic reason for deletion. <ref>http://fmwwrestling.us/FMWHistory2.html</ref>, <ref>https://prowrestlingradio.com/terry-funk-pro-wrestling-radio-interview/</ref>, <ref>http://www.puroresucentral.com/FMWReview-FunkMasters.html</ref>
Lee Vilenski(
talk) 11:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- FMWwrestling is primary. Puroresucentral is not a proven reliable source. You still haven't proven how it meets WP:GNG. It needs to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You have to prove they exist not just say the article needs them. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Nikki♥ 311 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG per nominator. The issues: This article has ZERO references towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a WP:BLP or information about living persons. The lead there states, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.", with the added, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". How is notability established? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:ENT and WP:NSPORT are guidelines. This page in a nutshell on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" fails both of these guidelines, especially by not complying with more than one relevant policy. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of citation overkill to falsely present notability. -- Otr500 ( talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. No references have been presented during this discussion which show notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Funk Masters of Wrestling
- Funk Masters of Wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only sources are primary or from wrestling databases with no criteria for inclusion (and therefore do not establish notability). Nikki♥ 311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 13:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT states is our guideline for this. I believe the number of tag team championships won by the group would qualify under #3. - Galatz Talk 14:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree if they'd held notable championships in more than one major promotion to satisfy "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I think arguing that holding a few championships in an independent promotion satisfies "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" is stretching. Nikki♥ 311 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't really see an issue. More sourcing is needed, but it's hardly a classic reason for deletion. <ref>http://fmwwrestling.us/FMWHistory2.html</ref>, <ref>https://prowrestlingradio.com/terry-funk-pro-wrestling-radio-interview/</ref>, <ref>http://www.puroresucentral.com/FMWReview-FunkMasters.html</ref>
Lee Vilenski(
talk) 11:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- FMWwrestling is primary. Puroresucentral is not a proven reliable source. You still haven't proven how it meets WP:GNG. It needs to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You have to prove they exist not just say the article needs them. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Nikki♥ 311 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG per nominator. The issues: This article has ZERO references towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a WP:BLP or information about living persons. The lead there states, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.", with the added, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". How is notability established? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:ENT and WP:NSPORT are guidelines. This page in a nutshell on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" fails both of these guidelines, especially by not complying with more than one relevant policy. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of citation overkill to falsely present notability. -- Otr500 ( talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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.