- 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
|