Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2007 WWE Draft/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 05:32, 13 January 2008.

---

2007 WWE Draft

I would like to nominate this list for FL status because I feel it follows FL criteria and every detail is sourced with reliable sources. This list is a list of superstars, or wrestlers, drafted by the WWE's three brands {as stated in the article}, and I feel the list follows the style of the FL status 2007 NFL Draft article. It would be great to have this article achieve FL status and add an FL list to the WP:PW.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns over the notability of this subject. The WWE Draft was just one show and I'm not entirely sure why it's notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well like the NFL Draft, the WWE Draft has been an annual event for WWE since 2002 and like the yearly NFL Drafts, I, along with other WP:PW members, will work on making article for the other years. This is also notable as it changes the production of each of the promotion's show, example. New matches, new storylines, and the way WWE responds to each yearly draft.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't even begin to compare the NFL and WWE drafts. The NHL draft receives tonnes of mainstream news coverage, there is a lot of scouting done for it and it potentially affects hundreds of players and all 32 teams. The WWE draft, in comparison, is covered by small wrestling websites and it is just a one episode event on a television show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, but List of WWE Champions isnt as notable as the List of Super Bowl champions. But it still reached FL status. So basically the WWE draft is important to WWE, and Professional Wrestling never recieves high media attention like the NFL and NHL. So how can this be an issue if professional wrestling isnt as notable as the NFl or NHL?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the WWE Championship has been around for 40 years and is one of the most notable wrestling championships. This page is a list about a one night thing and could easily be merged into WWE Draft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok just like the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE United States Champions, List of WWE Tag Team Champions is notable as the SuperBowl championship. But if you strongly disagreed with this article you should have said so in the WT:PW when I posted a notice about creating this page.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, all of those titles have existed for years and have been held by multiple notable wrestlers and have been defended many times. This is a one night event event that also included an online version. It is basically cruft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are so against it being an FL, no actually a DAMN article, then put under here oppose and get on with it.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - I support it, cause wrestling is a sport and like any other sports there is, there's always Draft lottery's and history is made. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The above support should be disregarded on two counts. (1) The reviewer makes no reference to the criteria, simply expresses his opinion on notability. (2) The reviewer was clearly invited "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I believe that this list is notable. Adding it to the WWE Draft Lottery page would make the other article too long, especially with all of the complexities of this specific draft. My only concern at this point is that I don't understand the note about Hardcore Holly. If someone could rephrase it (or give me a condensed version of what they mean so that I can rephrase it), I would be happy to support this nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Is that better??TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. I Support the nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Well done list. I don't think the draft should be compared to the NFL draft (although I don't get scorpiopn comments about the NHL draft getting tons of coverage since the only two drafts I see getting any kind of coverage are the NFL and NBA drafts. Maybe the NHL one gets coverage in Canada though). TJ Spyke 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a WP:PW consensus a while back to merge all of the WWE Draft pages? FLCs should follow the notability guidelines, and this is a one-night thing that received no coverage from mainstream news sources and is more or less cruft. If a page like this can make FL, then what's to stop a "List of the times Barney Gumble has belched in The Simpsons" from becoming one too? And now it looks like it is only going to pass thanks to WikiProject support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose due to use of unreliable sources. Please remove the sources that are personal homepages (e.g., angelfire.com and 100megsfree4.com). If any text relies on those sources, then that text must also be removed unless an alternative reliable source can be found. Once this is done, I will strike my oppose. Other comment: In the lead, final paragraph, why are four citations required? A tad excessive? Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Concerns have been expressed that some of the opinions here have been canvassed, specifically votestacking. Certainly three supports were in response to a personal request to "join this discussion" to editors likely to be generally supportive. One must be very careful about asking for opinions of those you may believe are likely to support. As noted above, I feel one crossed the line in specifically stating that they should join "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". One other support resulted in a thank-you note, asking "how many supports do we need" as though it was a vote. Both consensus and a minimum of four votes are required (including the nominator). IMO one support should be disregarded and the other two held as of lesser value. In other words, I'd like to see disinterested FL reviewers support before this list is featured. Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I agree with you on opposing this FL. I made a mistake asking project members to join the discussion, (this is my first time I nominated an FL). When I asked TJ Spyke whether how many supports we need, I was asking him whether he knew how long we would have to wait for this article (if it can) to achive FL status, in this case I was unaware of this whole process and was asking a general question.

Ok now for your other comment, we at the WP:PW, find 100megsfree4 a reliable site as it is one of the only sites out there that is not what we call "dirtsheet" site, which is a site that has rumors and speculation. 100megsfree4 is really called "Wrestling Information Archive", the URL however is different. The Angel Fire reference has been removed but it is really a redirect from this site [1] which is one of the few site WP:PW finds reliable. This is what we follow as to reliable sites. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Wrestling Information Archive" explicitly states that it is a "hobby site" and one so lacking in traffic that its owner can't even afford to buy a domain and some paid-for web space. The "History of WWE" site is also a hobby page. Although the guy, Graham Cawthon, has bought a domain, he hasn't bought any web space, which is all on Angel Fire. His MySpace page boasts that he's getting so many refs on Wikipedia that he'll soon have his own page here! Dream on. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is quite clear about self-published sources: don't use them. You need sources that are the product of someone's day-job; writers and editors whose career depends on their reputation for facts. Your Project guidelines are a good idea but you can't override policy. You might agree that Mr Cawthon is generally reliable but in WP's view, he is no more reliable than any Wikipedian (and indeed could be one). I'm sorry, but those sources have to go, and I suggest you update your project guildlines in keeping with policy. Colin°^Talk 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Well I will suggest that, and I removed the "Wrestling Information Archive" source. Now it only has 19 references, does it make sense to still nominate it for FL status?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed my oppose. I'll trust you that the remaining text was supported by the remaining sources; I've spent enough time on wrestling web sites today! Your nomination is still valid, but IMO you'll have to wait to see if some more folk support. Plenty time. Colin°^Talk 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for all your help.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The list does not explain where the "draft pool" came from. NFL Draft lists link to the NFL Draft article, which explains that the pool consists of players who have completed college eligibility or declared for the draft after 3 years in college. There is no such explanation in 2007 WWE Draft. This list also mixes fact and fiction, and it is difficult to determine what is real and what is kayfabe. It could get the in-universe template. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment- I dont understand your comment? You want to know how the wrestlers became elligibe for the draft? Also, what do you see that is mixed with fact and fiction?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, where did the pool of potential draftees come from? Were all WWE wrestlers eligible for selection? Or were these wrestler-actors new to WWE? Regarding the mix of fact and fiction, the article is written in an "in-universe style," as if WWE was "real." For example, it says that the second-day picks were chosen "randomly." Were they really chosen at random by a computer, or were they actually chosen by WWE management, with the "random" selection as part of the storyline? I can't imagine the WWE would actually assign wrestlers to its various promotions at random. For an example of how a pro-wrestling article should be written, see Montreal Screwjob. That featured article clearly explains what was real and what was part of the storyline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That was one of my struggles when writing the article. So I could say "A computer (kayfabe) randomly selected wrestlers to be drafted" Would that be enough or would I need to state that the wrestlers were really chosen by WWE management?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it was easier for the Montreal Screwjob article because there are plenty of sources about the real-life machinations behind that. You might want to use phrases like, "The WWE claimed that the second-day picks were chosen at random," or "According to the storyline, the second-day picks were chosen at random." But I'm afraid that to really make this featured content, you'll have to do research and find sources on the real-life aspect of the "draft." Perhaps there are trade or financial publications that would discuss why WWE would want to assign certain wrestlers to certain promotions. WWE is, after all, a $400 million publicly traded company. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is an article exposing that the draft is a storyline but I will attempt to do so. And saying who was eligible to be drafted is  Done.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found one site that exposes it as a "storyline" but it is not reliable it is Lords of Pain, heres the articleTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, Would you mind changing the sentence fragments in the "notes" sections of the tables to complete sentences. I think that will make it read and look better. Also, I believe that some of the columns would benefit by being resized. For instance, the first couple of columns could be smaller to reduce white space, and the "notes" column could be made bigger so it looks less cramped in the cells with a lot of writing. What do you think? Nikki311 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done>>> I resized the columns for less white space. I also fixed the fragments in the notes section in the supp. draft. I also reworded some of the sentences in the TV draft.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks much better. Another thing that would really help the article is a pic in the lead. I think maybe one of the pics from The Great Khali's article, with a caption like "The Great Khali was the first pick of the 2007 televised WWE Draft", or something like that, might be good. Nikki311 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done-I added an image of The Great Khali to the article, is that a good image?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There is absolutely nothing telling me in the article (nor in this discussion above) if any part of this was actually real, or if it was all kayfabe. Truco, I know you state above that you can't find sources discussing the storyline, but I fear that if you can't, then this can never be featured. There have to be tons of behind-the-scenes machinations about "Would this wrestler be a better heel if he was fighting this set of opponents?" or "Is he more likely to draw a large viewer audience if he was a part of this brand?", and I see nothing of the sort in this article. Also, the best wrestling articles- even those that just deal with a single PPV- have an "aftermath" or "impact" section about how the events changed storylines (and if there was any real-world impact), but I see none of that here. Yes, I know this is a featured list candidate and not a featured article candidate, but I would still like to see far more exposition before supporting this. That's not to say I don't think it's an excellent list; I simply think it's not of featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, I really dont feel it's a FL either, someone suggested to me that it would be a good idea. But after all this discussion here, I kinda oppose it to now. Thanks for your opinion, plus that there is no article exposing it as a storyline. The only one's that do are "dirt sheet/spoiler" sites, which are highly unreliable. So no point of this conversation going on.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found one site that exposes why WWE uses the draft and they refer to it as "concept", is this reliable enough to put in the article? [2]--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Looks reliable to me. D.M.N. (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Can we close this discussion now? A majority of opposition..--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.