User talk:BabsChikara

Chikara Season One[edit]

Pretty much all of them apart from maybe the Morning Call and the official Chikara and Smart Mark Video sources. See WP:RELIABLE, especially the part about "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Ringbelles is also not considered reliable per WP:PW/MOS.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Morning Call" is an online version of a print newspaper. I used independent reviews and accounts of the matches - how is that not reliable, as they are unbiased? I understand that you don't consider Ringbelles reliable, but the information in the article I used is correct and Kiryoku Pro was only around for a short time in 2002, so it is very difficult to find any information it. Please advise as what sources I should use.

ChikaraSpecial and 4thletter are fansites (that even someone like you or me could write) and the wikia can be edited by anyone; both are clearly against WP:RELIABLE. I gave you a link to the Wikiproject's style guide, read it for reliable sources.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that if a site or an article is written by someone who is a subject expert (even if it's a fan), then it should be acceptable, especially when it comes to sports/entertainment. But that's my own personal opinion and not something that I know you control or is your fault or anything like that. Sorry, I don't mean to complain, it's just a little frustrating as a new user. I will remove those sources. Thank you for your time and help. I do appreciate it. BabsChikara (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BabsChikara, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi BabsChikara! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chikara Season 11 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chikara Season 11 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikara Season 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Welcome, BabsChikara. As I see, you're new here. From your created articles of the Chikara seasons, I can tell you have much to learn about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Of course, you're not a lost cause, you're just new, and that's absolutely fine. But you also have to be receptive of what editors tell you. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (WP:PW, signing up is free) and we discuss things at the project talk page WT:PW. I've been editing professional wrestling articles since 2011.

First piece of advice I can give you is stop whatever you are doing... in your sandbox. Yes, I see Season 10 there. Don't bother about it. Why, you say? Because the rest of your seasons are in danger of being deleted. Better work to save them than focus on new articles. As Season 11 is in current danger of being deleted, focus on that first. Although all the rest might be targeted in one fell swoop.
Now to explain how Wikipedia works and how this affects your "season" articles. Every single claim in Wikipedia must be sourced. The source must state the claim, or be so apparent anyone with common sense can conclude so. This links to Wikipedia's central tenet of verifiability. Official policy central to Wikipedia dictates that Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. WP:PW has a list of accepted, reliable sources, right here. Sources not mentioned there are considered unreliable, unless they are newspapers like Baltimore Sun, The Mirror or The Sun for example. Use "Websites proven reliable" whenever possible, those sources will be accepted, unless you are sourcing dirtsheet rumours, then they might not be acceptable. It is generally recommended not to use the websites under "Other websites (not yet proven)" unless for uncontroversial claims. Any other sources, including those in "Unreliable sources", are not to be used and can be removed any time.
Notice policy states "third-party". Look at your Season 11 article. About 3/8 of your references are to "Archived: Events", which is a primary source by Chikara. If the article is relying so much on a primary source, how notable is its content? This means the content is not "popular" enough to be reported by other sources. Wikipedia is here to report what other sources say about Chikara, because this shows that what Chikara is doing is important. It is not here to report what Chikara states about Chikara, because then it might not be important.
Policy also states "reliable" and "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's not good enough to be a third-party. Anyone can be a third-party. Blogs are not acceptable, because there's no fact-checking. Bleacher Report and 411mania are the same, because it's user-generated content. Anyone can post what they like. Stick to the published sources (slam.canoe.ca is one), or published "commercial" wrestling newsletters (pwtorch.com and f4wonline.com). They're not doing it for free, so they have a stimulus to maintain reliable content. I'm going to your Season 11 article to tag all the unreliable sources. Please replace them with better ones. If you can't replace them, then I'm sorry to say, that your content is not notable enough. That's why it hasn't gotten enough coverage, then it's probably not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please do have an open mind. I'm not biased against Chikara, I'm trying to help you. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My time for editing tonight is almost up. If things were previously on the internet and are now dead links, look at archive.org. It has a WayBack Machine. I'll advise more at a later time. I know that there aren't many online sources back in 2002, that is unfortunate, because if there's not enough media, it means that it is not notable (another key guideline on Wikipedia), and the content will have to be removed. Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a set rule to how many references you need for an article to qualify. It looks like the article has quite a few Torch and PWInsider references, that is good. There are still unreliable sources and I will tag them for you to remove. After you remove the unreliable sources, the other issue with the article is that it could be considered Wikipedia:Fancruft. If you remove all the unreliable sources, will the article be able to support so much content? Is the article too big / too detailed for its own good, especially if you can't find the reliable sources to support it? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how to use archive.org. Please also change your "According to CBS Local and the City Paper" weblinks to references instead. In your references, please use the |publisher field as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there are even more concerns. Per the style guide, week-by-week info is not encouraged... Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of what that wrestler did on whatever show they're on. For example, we don't write that Zack Ryder lost to Alberto Del Rio on this week's WWE Main Event because that was a meaningless loss for Ryder. In your article's case, it might be "event-by-event" info. We can only list the most important things that happened.

I'd just like you to consider an alternative for the season articles. If each season is not "notable" enough on its own, perhaps all the articles combined to form History of Chikara might be. But the information definitely needs to be condensed somehow, the article is definitely too big for my liking currently. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WT:PW, start a new discussion by clicking "new section" at the top of the page. I will then weigh my comments there, but they're not optimistic. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chikara Season One for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chikara Season One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikara Season One until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LM2000 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CHIKARA main page[edit]

Hi.

We tend to keep all pages for promotions largely kayfabe/storyline free. For example, WWE has tons of storylines too, but the Wiki page for the promotion has very little storyline stuff, mainly mentioning the larger things that shaped the entire industry (Austin, Montreal). Storylines are mainly on pages of the individual wrestlers/tag teams/PPVs etc. (and most of the things you mentioned already are). And those storylines also need to have proper sources. A list of acceptable sources can be seen here. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 17:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]