Talk:New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling

	New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Wellington may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Still no reliable proof

@Socks01: - I have reverted the last effort to claim this promotion is defunct because the proof is not proof. Aside from the fact that Cage Match is not to be used for anything other than match results (see WP:PW/RS under Industry specific where it says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information.") the other sources you provided don't match up. The first I want to address identifies NZWPW as part of He Toa Sports from 2007 to 2009 only, and not since. There is no proof that the two have been connected since. This makes the other sources irrelevant as they make no mention of NZWPW. Do not add Cage Match again as I have given you enough chances, and you need better sources otherwise. Meanwhile, the status quo stays. If you add Cage Match one more time I will be forced to report you. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided showed NZWPW was a limited company from 2007 to 2009 but after that it was operated by the parent He Toa Sports and no longer a subsidiary. Also the contact page of the now closed NZWPW website https://magglecreative.wixsite.com/nzwpw/contact you will see it was part of He Toa Sports which is now closed. Please see the contact page of nzwpw.com in the Web Archive. It shows it is He Toa Sports. Also you will see here that it is closed: https://www.wrestling-titles.com/nz/nzwpw/nzwpw-h.html Where is the proof it is still active? I'm going to open a discussion soon on this to see what others say. Socks 01 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"after that it was operated by the parent He Toa Sports and no longer a subsidiary" That is original research. There is no proof that is the case. The website contact page you linked only proves at best that He Toa Sports allowed NZWPW to use their office. Nothing more than that. If you disagree you need more proof. Proof means specifically "NZWPW is closed/defunct". "Inactive" is the same as "in hiatus" which is what the present evidence says. The note of update required is the first right thing you've done. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He Toa Sports IS WPW. Martin Stirling owned the damn company. SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for the company, smart guy. Which means I'd know more than you would. SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confession of a conflict of interest. You can not add your information without an independent reliable source. Those are the rules. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's something very, very sad seeing someone who doesn't even work in the NZ Wrestling scene wagging his finger at someone who does for providing accurate information. That's rather bloody-minded, honestly. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's bloody minded is your obvious violations of original research and conflict of interest and you don't seem to care about that. Very easy to assume bad faith here. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the Company.

So, to the guy reverting everybody's edits: please explain how you'd have us ante up an article when you've pooh-poohed a Cagematch link, and there are no articles out there officially stating that a dead company is dead. As I stated in my second to last edit- He Toa Gym? Sold. Belts? Martin took them back. The ring? Sold to a family in Paraparaumu. Yet this is considered not good enough because I don't have an article typed up anywhere? Please explain then how I would prove these facts without any articles proving them whilst you say Cagematch is "OR" too.

I'd honestly like to see some evidence WPW is still alive, myself. Kind of hard to be an active promotion when all of your talent have split themselves between two companies, you don't hold shows, don't have titles and don't have a ring anymore.

So please. Explain how I'm supposed to prove this when nobody has taken it upon themselves to write an essay proving the company is dead? SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I find it interesting that the above subject has the person undoing everyone else's edits indicating they're not familiar with the fact that Martin Stirling, the owner of NZWPW owned He Toa Sports, He Toa Sports being another name for NZWPW. Which ran out of the He Toa Gym. Which Martin owned. The only reason it was called He Toa Sports is because Martin would occasionally host Kickboxing and Sumo matches on wrestling cards. It's bizarre to me that someone who has nothing to do with New Zealand wrestling at all is trying to "correct" people who used to work for NZWPW when it was open. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can not prove the company is dead without a reliable independent source, when the current sources state that it is inactive. Please read them and understand them. That is the status quo. To change this you must provide a source. There is no other way around this. If no one has written about it - under WP rules it is inactive and not defunct. Also, you have stated you are involved in the wrestling scene. That constitutes a violation of WP:COI so your neutrality on this subject is under question. Your bias is clearly getting in the way of truly understanding the issue at hand. If you revert once more without providing a reliable source I will be following the procedure to report you for disruptive conduct on the edit warring board. You don't have to be in violation of WP:3RR for a report to be made. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you can't prove me wrong, can't argue against the facts I've provided, can't offer any alternatives, yet I'm wrong because you say so and you'll get the guys running this website onto me because you're wrong, but you don't want to admit it. Wonderful. SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't prove me wrong within the rules of Wikipedia. Your opinion or "knowledge" is totally irrelevant. There are rules here and they need to be followed. I am following them. You are not. That is the reality. The onus is on you to provide sources for your claims, and as you are totally relying on original research that is forbidden on Wikipedia you can not add your information. It is that simple. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research." It's called knowing what I'm talking about as an active worker on the NZ Wrestling scene. Your counterargument is "I can't prove you don't know what you're on about, but because you don't have an online article to go with it, you can't put correct information into an article and stale, out of date information must stay there because I say so." Do you hear how inane and obtuse that sounds? SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To someone as biased as you of course it would. I'm neutral. All you are doing is proving me right. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sounding very WP:Civil there, homie. How does one have a bias as to a company being closed and someone who doesn't know the company saying it isn't?SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission, you worked for the company, correct? That's bias AKA conflict of interest. Wikipedia operates on the basis of a neutral point of view and because you worked for the company, you can't have a neutral point of view. That is why an independent reliable source is required - and you know that rule and you have used it correctly in the past, in particular in early April when you removed mention of Taylor Wilde from the Impact Wrestling personnel for not having a source before she actually returned at Rebellion. No source = not true. And in this case you can not say otherwise because you are engaging in original research and have a conflict of interest as I said. That is just the way it is. Your refusal to understand this is what is uncivil if anything. Until a proper source is located, the article stays as is because the current form is supported by sources. "In hiatus" (which is what the sources actually) = inactive. Not defunct. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faecbook is not a reliable source here

The rule regarding Facebook reads; "As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)"
The source being used is not NZWPW, so it is not an official page for the purposes of this rule. Therefore it is not a reliable source. The common issues section should also be noted and reflect on why Facebook should not be used as a source. The content of the video is entirely irrelevant to the issue. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no official NZWPW pages anymore because it has folded. You are not going to find a better source than the Facebook video, which is from an official NZ wrestling promotion. There are not a lot of sources about wrestling in my home of New Zealand! It is a very small niche community.Socks 01 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not provide an exception to the rule I quoted. It can not be included because of "insufficient sources". That's a reason NOT to include it. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content of the video isn't irrelevant at all, given it contains the information being verified. Can you find a better source? Because this is once again a case of "I don't agree with it, therefore your edit doesn't count." SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]