Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingerpoke of Doom (3rd nomination)

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 hopelessly tainted by socking. hopelessly tainted by socking Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerpoke of Doom

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article is pure WP:OR and WP:POV. Reliable Sources exist, but do not back up what the Article claims they do. I have added various ^{[citation needed]} tags which have gone ignored. In addition, various Reliable Sources have been found(and added) which completely debunk the article's claims. Further, this may completely fail WP:N. The article has been deleted twice before. The first time the result was "no consensus". It was then (re)nominated, and survived, due to more votes for "Keep" than for "Delete". However, since Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, I have remoninated the Article, due to its lack of Sources which back up the claims, and its being made from whole cloth. Also, anyone checking Webster's, OED, or dictionary.com will discover that there is not, nor has ever been such a word as "Fingerpoke". The term is only used by ONE of the various Sources, Reliable or not. It is fairly popular with the Internet Wrestling Community though. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've made my case here, which I will be happy to copy and paste as it applies as much then as it does now. The only people who seem to find this event important are wrestling fans on message boards. If you do a google search, you will find out of the top 50 results more than half of search results come back with message board topics. Please put this article out of its misery once and for all. --Endlessdan (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - The reliable sources obviously establish notability, as they discuss the event and its impact, so this seems to be a frivolous nomination. As for the unresolved citation needed tags, they were added less than a week ago over Christmas, so WP:NOTIMELIMIT certainly applies there. Now, the event was certainly notable, and the big thing that the deletionists point to in these discussions is the article title. I can certainly see an argument for renaming the article to something less "message board"y. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended dialogue with the sock of a banned user.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- What would you rename it as? Likewise, while certain sources point to something of a notability, it is nowhere near the "pivotal moment that led to the downfall of the company". There are far more worthy incidents, such as David Arquette's World Title victory. Yet these do not have their own articles. In addition, the sources seem to indicate that the giving away of the Foley result was far more significant than what happened on Nitro itself. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WCW Monday Nitro (January 4, 1998). And please don't misrepresent the sources, as they are quite clear that the title change was the key event. If the Foley result also played a role, the name I have proposed works perfectly. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The wwe.com site, Bischoff's book, as well as the Monday Night Wars DVD all state that the Foley result leaking was. Also there's a big difference between between "shocking or "infamous" and being "pivotal". Seeker of the Torch (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...which leaves several sources that state directly that the title change was the key event. Either way, it supports my statement that an article about the Nitro episode as a whole is warranted. After all, countless television series have articles about each episode. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps the key event for that night, but not a key event in pro Wrestling history in general ala Montreal Screwjob. And would you then be open for individual articles covering various RAW, Nitro, Smackdown! etc episodes, eg First Nitro, the Smackdown! where Vince McMahon won the WWF Championship, the Owen Hart Tribute RAW etc. getting their own articles? There is no reason for this incident to have itws own article. Even if it was noteworthy(and this is seriously disputed by Reliable Sources), then at best it could be included in the Monday Nitro article. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your straw man argument doesn't work. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not the argument I was making. I merely stated if you had a Reliable Source that stated that this Nitro(or more specificaly, this specific incident) was indeed WP:N, and yes any more important than hundreds of other incidents during the Monday Night Wars. I have provided Reliable Sources that refute your argument. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What you have done is added more reliable sources that discuss the continued impact of this event on wrestling. If it were truly non-notable, it wouldn't be discussed in all of these books, articles, interviews, and DVDs. If it still has people talking about it years later and people are still trying to argue their points about its impact, it was certainly noteworthy, regardless of whether or not it brought about the end of WCW. In seeking to establish notability, pretty much any press is good press, after all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I stated on my discussion page, these are pretty much it. AS an example, Hulk Hogan never even mentions the incident in his autobiography. The works of Assael, Muchnick etc likewise make no mention of it. The ONE example I added was of Bischoff refuting that THE FOLEY RESULT LEAKING was noteworthy. Again, he doesn't mention the "Fingerpoke of Doom" even in passing. Likewise, your sources are wwe.com abd their DVDs(primary source, and again the emphasis is on Schiavone giving away the Foley result), and the works of Bryan Alvarez(who runs a newsletter named after Ric Flair's finishing move), RD Reynolds(who appears to be much more of a comedian than a historian), a "Juvenile Nonfiction" writer in Davies, and Brian Fritz, about who I can honestly say I know absolutely nothing. That's hardly "multiple reliable sources". Likewise, the only people arguing its impact and significance are you and I right here. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Crucially, Bill Goldberg in his autobiography I'm Next mentions only that Nash beat him then dropped the belt to hogan. There is no mention of this being "pivotal" or "impactful" or anything of the sort. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just another aside; this article can be shortened and added to the World Championship Wrestling article. --Endlessdan (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - A few more points. 1)Having read friend's copy of "Death of WCW"(one of the Reliable Sources) it is clear that the book is comedy. It is certainly very funny, with great jokes throughout. Using a source about "the beginning of the end" is also wrong. as throughout the book various angles/incidents such as the bungling of the Starrcade 1997 Main Event, Goldberg's dropping the World Title, the January 4 Nitro(never called the 'Fingerpoke of Doom'), the arrival of Russo and Ferrara, and the David Arquette Title victory are all called "the beginning of the end", as are other events. In the end however, Alvarez and Reynolds admit that it was the AOL-Time Warner merger, and specifically Kellner's canceling of all wrestling programming that was The Death of WCW, and everything else, while it may have hurt business was far from crucial. However, the editor here has cherrypicked one small section completely out of context and used that as a Reliable Source. Someone has also now added something from UK topless newspaper "The Sun", which implies that the "Fingerpoke of Doom" was on par with Johnny B Badd and the Shockmaster. I'm not sure how to react to this one. On the one hand, The Sun does not seem to be a Reliable Source. On the other hand. it equates the January 4 1999 Nitro with "failed concepts" that while they may have been dumb, were little more than minor annoyances. Nobody would ever claim that the Shockmaster or Johnny B Badd were pivotal moments that brought down WCW. Which takes us back to people building mountains out of molehills and seeing False Horsemen everywhere(usually where they themselves want to see them). It is telling that in "Death of WCW" Alvarez wastes no opportunity to make personal attacks against Hogan and Nash, while simultanesouyl wasting no opportunity to call Ric Flair "the Greatest Wrestler of All Time". POV anyone?Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In the UK, The Sun is regarded as being more intellectual than The Star, but as The Star is quite widely (outside its regular readership) regarded as a comic, that's not saying much. I'd put The Sun as a step ahead of the National Enquirer, and three steps ahead of The Quibbler... Peridon (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or add a small section to the WCW article. We don't need this blow-by-blow account of something that might have happened this way or that, and which ended a 'championship' or didn't, depending who you believe. (I personally wonder how much of this hyped-up wrestling is real anyway.) If it can be shown that this event/riot/performance was really important to anything important, OK. So far, it doesn't look like it. Peridon (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Add relevant information to the WCW article. While it may have been significant at the time, wrestling pretty much controls it's own history. Without substantial external reliable sources, it's only relevant in an in-universe manner. Dayewalker (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my vote, out of respect for the process. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant delete~~ As a pro-wrestling aficionado, I would put the "Fingerpoke" as one of a handful of catalysts that marked the downfall of WCW, (conceding the point that it is not the one and only turning point in its history.) Unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough information here that truly warrants a separate article, and after three AfDs I don't believe that a good article is forthcoming. Over half of this article goes on to talk about events outside of the match itself, including the juxtaposition with events that night on WWE RAW. I'm not going to comment on the Notability claims directly, since pro-wrestling articles seem to suffer from a systemic bias in the Notability department, in that most of the dedicated press outlets are routinely decried as "dirtsheets" and the more mainstream press outlets don't generally cover wrestling. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn !Vote Kudos to McJeff for sniffing out this smelly sock. My editorializing (read: bitching) about the apparent stricter levels of scrutiny applied by some to pro-wrestling articles is a subject for another time. This page is in desperate need of a cleanup though, and if this page is not improved before the next guy with a chip on his shoulder comes along with a 4th nom, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up deleted. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Originally you said "a good article is never forthcoming" but now you are saying "give it some time for clean up"... so why the change now?--Endlessdan (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definately does not meet WP:N. Smiles The Clown (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC) _{Striking out vote of a sock of a banned user. McJEFF ^(talk) 01:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete, then condense article and put on the WCW page under "decline". The Fingerpoke is one of the major events that caused WCW to fall, but it is a booked storyline and conforms to professional wrestling's nature, unlike the Montreal Screwjob which is an actual event that happened in a a supposedly-fictionalized setting. Most of the entries in the page are written in a POV and is not uncyclopedic in nature. But still, the fingerpoke is a real event, it has citation, but is not as important and as relevant to the Wrestling industry as the Montreal Screwjob to have an article of it's own. So, there. Including it on the WCW page is the best way we can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.122.85 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Montreal Screwjob was a booked storyline event too, albeit improvised a bit when Bret Hart failed to play along with the original booked outcome. Yes, the Screwjob had much more of an effect on the industry as a whole, but that's mainly because the WWE has been constantly playing off of it for over twelve years. The problem with the Fingerpoke article isn't that it wasn't important, it's that there isn't nearly enough that can be written about it to justify a standalone article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was nominated for deletion by a ECW500 sock. [1] Mc JEFF ^(talk) 01:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not addressing the actual state of the article. Instead I am simply rebutting the claims that sourcing is inadequate, and a couple other delete votes as well.

In regards to the books, ignoring the online sources for the time being. The article is currently sourced to seven wrestling books. Four are the biographies of Goldberg, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Eric Bischoff. The other three are third-party sources. They were both published by ECW Press. As has been mentioned on various AfDs, ECW Press is not a vanity publisher and inclusion in a book published by them does confer notability. The issue then becomes if there is adequate mention of them. Both Death of WCW and Between the ropes devote a significant amount of discussion to both the incident and its ramifications.

Also, as mentioned in the previous AfD, the incident gets hits on google news - one on "Fingerpoke of Doom" and three on "Finger Poke of Doom". In fact, one of the hits on the second search is a column about boxing that still sees fit to mention it[2].

Most of the Delete !Votes take issue of the sourcing. The others are saying it's "just not notable", and some are openly hostile to wrestling fans, or wrestling in general. Also, one Delete!Vote mentioned that it happened a long time ago. Notability does not diminish over time.

As far as other delete votes, we have Endlessdan's old argument that "only wrestling fans care about it", Peridon's openly hostile to wrestling vote, Smiles the Clown is another ECW500 sock, and... that's about it. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet my "old argument" still holds weight. 3 years later and this article hasn't been improved and still hasn't been proven to be notable enough to people other than wrestling fans to warrant its own article. --Endlessdan (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much weight as you might think. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur that the subject is notable - and there's sourcing to back it. But the criticism section is a goddamn mess, and it's been that way for a long while, near as I can tell. While I'm not sure this should be deleted, Endlessdan's concerns aren't far off the mark. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was easy enough to fix. Someone who owns the books will probably want to go add some direct quotes and page numbers to the citation templates, but it's no longer so sloppy and reliant on quoted text. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the massive quotations in the Criticism section (which were probably bordering on copyright violations) were added by the block sockpuppet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to blocked sock nomination. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into World Championship Wrestling and/or Monday Nitro. Notable topic, with reliable sources, but does it really need its own Wikipedia article? Turnstitle (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to bet this is yet another ECW500 sock per this edit [3], and per returning after months of inactivity to go straight to this AfD. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 20:13, 7 January 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.