Talk:Action Zone Wrestling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No other fed has tried the Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday concept to my knowledge - which makes this fed notable. Curse of Fenric 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You REALLY don't understand the concept of notability on Wikipedia. This does NOT make it notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. I recommend you read up on WP:NOTABILITY.BooyakaDell 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I suggest you better understand professional wrestling because clearly if this is anything to go by you don't in my opinion. Curse of Fenric 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't do any good to say something like that. I repeat, You REALLY don't understand the concept of notability on Wikipedia. This does NOT make it notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. I recommend you read up on WP:NOTABILITY.BooyakaDell 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I suggest you better understand professional wrestling because clearly if this is anything to go by you don't in my opinion. Curse of Fenric 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Notability to the subject. That's why understanding pro wrestling is relevant. Curse of Fenric 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- This subject is not notable by any pro wrestling standards, in my opinion.BooyakaDell 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I am involved in the business. Are you? Curse of Fenric 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not going to engage in semantics. My point stands.BooyakaDell 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This article's topic is not notable according to the standards at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged BooyakaDell 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I am involved in the business. Are you? Curse of Fenric 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The reference you use is inappropriate. Curse of Fenric 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It is perfectly appropriate.BooyakaDell 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Comments
Notability at Wikipedia simply refers to whether a subject has received non-trivial documentation in multiple independent published sources. Arguing about whether or not each of us thinks it's notable is completely irrelevant. Proof of notability comes in the form of sources - no more, no less. Are people writing about this topic in publications outside of Wikipedia: yes or no?
Everyone, please stop adding and removing tags from the top of this article - such reversions make the edit history less useful. If you disagree with the tags, address the article's problem with sourcing (that is, that nothing in the article is referenced to a source), and then remove them. If you agree with the tags, you should know that edit warring over tags is the wrong thing to do. If you can't or won't improve the article, take it to AfD if your tags get removed.
Also: adding tags that one believes to be appropriate is not vandalism. Removing tags that one believes to be inappropriate is not vandalism. Doing either of these things twice is edit warring. Please do not edit war - the tags really aren't very important. What's important is adding sources, or else deleting the article as consisting of unsourced material. Once one of those things is done, the tags will be a moot point. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've nominated it for deletion.BooyakaDell 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I am about to take this to admin. Lethaniol stated that this is almost out of control. I say it IS out of control - and it stops now and Booyaka needs to be blocked. Curse of Fenric 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
