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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Castillo del Terror (2004)[edit]

El Castillo del Terror (2004) (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)

Lack of notability. A one-evening sporting event in a hall with max. 2,400 spectators, for which we have one source of routine sports coverage, and one short mention in the entry of one participant in a lucha encyclopedia? We don't even know the names of most participants, and 80% or more of the article is not about this event in any case, but general information. The "event" section really says all one has to know about the notability of this specific event. Fram (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is an assumption that the coverage is "routine" in an "encylopedia". Reasons below.  MPJ-DK  12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first of two sources listed for the show itself is a weekly magazine which does not just list "a defeated b", they actually covered the show (Significant), from a long-running wrestling magazine with an editor and an editorial process that is not associated with the wrestling promotion (Reliable source, Secondary coverage, Independent of subject).
• As for the encylopedia, unlike Wikipedia an encyclopedia can indeed be a reliable source, especially since it has an editorial process, is secondary coverage and is independent of the subject. The second source is an addition to the first one.
• Being a "one-evening" event nor the amount of people watching it are part of the WP:GNG, did you know that the Super Bowl is also a "one-evening" event?? GNG is about sources, "one-evening" and number of people in the building are irrelevant to notability. If we put that aspect on it this is part of a long-running series of annual shows held by IWRG, one of the signature events of IWRG not just some random show.
• As for content, I tried to give the perspective of the actual event, not just a narrow "this happened from 10 to 12 PM" and as the GNG states (in a section header no less) "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" so that's not a reason to AFD it.
• Let's address the last one "not all the participants are known", the pictures shows various wrestlers in the cage, but does not list them by name and it would be Original Research by me to actually name them.

• Please reread my deletion nomination. The routine part and the encyclopedia part are two separate items, not one, so it looks as if you are making strawaman arguments. And while it is good that you provide some background, the fact remains that without the background we are left with a two-sentence, one-source article (the "event" section) on an event with limited number of viewers and very limited coverage shortly after the game, not WP:SUSTAINED as required by WP:N. Fram (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck is a "strawman" argument? I addressed that the coverage was not just routine "sports score" I fail to see that "it's an encylopedia" is any sort of argument for the AFD. Considering the encylopedia was published years late and covered the mask loss (it's specifcally a called "The Mask Encylopedia") that took place in the main event that part is not "shortly after the show".  MPJ-DK  13:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You started your defense with "There is an assumption that the coverage is "routine" in an "encylopedia"." while no such assumption was made. There was on the one hand one piece of routine coverage, and on the other hand a passing mention in an encyclopedia lemma about a wrestler. Straw man indicates the fallacy involved, and why I can hardly address the defense you built, as it starts out from a false premisse. You are still conflating the news coverage and the encyclopedia (which, despite the name "encyclopedia", looks more like a 64-page glossy catalogue, not really an encyclopedia in the standard sense of the word). Fram (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for the quality of the source being compromised by it being in color, glossy and has pictures, I know that is important to a reliable source. I've put my position, you've pointed out the glossiness, I think I'll just let others comment on this as well.  MPJ-DK  14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but an "encyclopedia" which looks like this on an average page is hardly comparable to real reference sources with indepth information. this is the page for Vilano V, also mentioned in the article up for AfD here. I doubt that an entry for Mega will have more than a passing mention for this event, but perhaps you can provide the actual quote from the enciclopedia? Fram (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge all the El Castillo del Terror's into one article. The event as a recurring promotion may barely pass GNG given its coverage in wrestling literature (I am not convinced of this) but individually there is certainly not the required coverage for this *specific* event to pass GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple independent sources. Several aspects of the deletion nomination are unrelated to deletion criteria. Meets GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After the lengthy back-and-forth on the merits of notability, I'm inclined to believe this meets criteria. A merge discussion would probably be a better alternative to AfD.LM2000 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2016 (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.