Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet wrestling community (second)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Proto::► 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet wrestling community

Internet wrestling community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• June 2005 VFD

Article is completely unreferenced and appears to be composed of original research regarding wrestling fans on the internet. Additionally, the article does not assert the notability of this internet community. —ptk✰fgs 08:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:OR. Wikipedia should not have articles on internet communities over different fields. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Smark. The assertion of notability is how it has affected the WWE. Much of the content probably can be cited- a very small portion of it ventures into original research land. --- RockMFR 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, fails WP:V. Recury 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a significant term among wrestling fans on the internet that covers a broad base, not just one message board. This article has survived a previous afd. There may be issues regarding OR but those can be rectified with research that verifies most of what is in the article. MrMurph101 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Also, a google search provides plenty of hits for this term. MrMurph101 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment without vote (for now). The article does assert notability as it mentions the effects of the community on the sports entertainment industry. On the other hand, without independent sources acknowledging this, either by full name or by IWC (which itself is an acronym for a regional wrestling organization [1] in addition to a boatload of other things), this would fail under WP:V and WP:NOR. Right now I'll abstain in the hopes that someone would find a couple of worthwhile sources. B.Wind 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While some references were added, not one of them was from a reliable source outside of the industry. Reluctant delete. While we're at it, Delete Smark (AfD is here) for the same reasons. B.Wind 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as original research. MrHarman 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I see four sources in this article so that discredits the "original research" issue. Plus as someone pointed out, a google search provides numerous hits, and also there are much less notable articles that survive here that no one pays attention to or puts some sort of "this article needs fixing" tag on it. It would be better to do that than try to arbitrarily delete it. Arthur Fonzarelli 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, is total OR, is hard to tell how widespread the term or "community" is, and it is not suitable here. 69.209.113.141 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Smark Per RockMFR -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:OR. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per MrMurph101's vote and B.Wind's comments. Jeff Silvers 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Their comments were contingent on substantial changes to the article (which is still almost completely unreferenced). Have these changes been implemented? What notability criteria do you believe would be appropriate for this article? —ptk✰fgs 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still relying on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, actually. The four sources are not independent of the topic of the article; namely, they in fact originate within the very same group of people this article attempts to describe. For it to comply with the first two Wikipedia policies, there needs to be a source from outside the professional wrestling industry and the purported internet wrestling community... say, from a newspaper (site) or national news service. For the lack of such, I remain abstaining for the time being. B.Wind 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The term is generic and self-described. The notability would be that pro wrestlers and promoters acknowledge this group even if it's not always direct. The sources in the article are usually responses to wrestlters who are usually criticizing the IWC. It might be good to get the direct source from Matt Hardy or Eric Bischoff when commenting on internet wrestling fans. I noticed there's a couple of merge votes to Smark but that has no sources at all and that apparently is now being afd'd. The term IWC is being used much more than "Smark" now I can tell you that. MrMurph101 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But still no independent sources - that's the problem here. You have basically admitted that it cannot meet WP:V or WP:RS (side question: have you tried seeing if it's been used in mainstream media sites? I know Alex Marvez has been following and writing about it for years for newspapers in Ohio and Florida). As for Smark: it too is up at AfD for essentially the same reason (and that it is a neologism). B.Wind 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the threshold for "reliable sources" for this subject matter? It would be people in the industry at the very least. This group may not get a segment on the BBC or 60 Minutes but it is notable among wrestling fans. To me, verifiability means something that can be confirmed even if it is not presently sourced. Just because some major outlet outside of the industry has not done something on it, I believe, does not in itself mean sources have to be outside the scope of the industry. That would be like saying a scientist(reputable of course) who does research on evolution is not a good enough citation because no outside media reported on it and therefore any article on evolution should be deleted. I'm sure many scientists would dispute that notion.MrMurph101 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a weak analogy as scientific research usually - eventually - gets reported to, and by, media beyond the people doing the research. Secondarily, since evolution has still some controversy attached to it, it would be likely to be reported by media on both sides of it.B.Wind 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It probably wasn't worded in the best way. My point was that if something was notable in the scientific community does it need some sort of coverage by the media or referenced by some other group like, say, the freemasons? Or anyone else not related to science for that to be included? Do you see what I'm trying to say? MrMurph101 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC) For example, Terraforming of Venus does not cite any references outside the scientific community. Does that mean it should be deleted based on your criteria? MrMurph101 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Michaelas10. Blacklist 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MrMurph101 vote and Arthur Fonzarelli. Just because a term is not well-known among the mainstream community does not automatically make it unencyclopedic; an encyclopedia is meant to be a place where the uneducated can learn about these things. Just as long as it's not filled with useless trivia, I'll stand by my vote. [[Briguy52748 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)]]
• Delete. I do not find the external references to be sufficiently well-grounded. It is not enough to cite references outside Wikipedia; it is also necessary that these references would be generally regarded as substantial and targetted at what would count for a broad audience within the general subject area. Thus narrow fan websites don't count, and nor do websites which are run by fans posing as journalists. We need more solid references ( a reputable professionally published wrestling magazine or two would do the trick nicely ). The question I ask myself about articles like this is "could this come up as the answer to a million-dollar quiz-show question?" Clearly something like kayfabe or face or heel could come up, but I can't imagine a fair quiz-show expecting the subject of this article as an answer. So on balance, I think this article should go. It also has the scent of OR, which I don't care for, but that's a separate issue. WMMartin 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per the reasons from MrMurph101, Arthur Fonzarelli and Briguy52748. In any way, this article IS informative and does not violate any copyright.LightningStruck 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What was that about copyright? We don't keep any old crap just because it doesn't violate copyright, you know. —ptk✰fgs 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ("Internet wrestling" #community) into google returns 11,600 results. Okay I see you pointing out there is an Internet wrestling community, but for an encyclopedia this page is terrible. You already have the term "Internet communities". I think that is already covering the basics. Then you are trying to go one step further to define the IWC. Which too me is simple not needed. Govvy 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.