Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Brawlers Association

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backyard Brawlers Association

A Non-notable wrestling organization that wasn't even shown on public television. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 06:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

• Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Frankly, I think there ought to be some generic categories that qualify an article for Speedy: bands with Myspace pages as the lead Google hits, any mediacruft (such as individual Gundam weapon systems or cameo characters) that can't claim more than ten seconds of screentime, elementary schools and backyard wrestling "federations." Before this article gets its richly-deserved deletion, though, go check out the BBA's website; it's a barrel of laughs. The 14-year-old wrestler with the stagename "Big Tub Of Fat" is worth the price of admission alone. RGTraynor 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraner. These guys don't have any claim to notability Ydam 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Athenaeum 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep BBA has a claim to notability in the Oceanside and Rockville Centre areas of New York. Being featured in the New York Daily News and the Wrestling Observer Newletter is notable enough to stay up on Wikipedia. XxTool7723xX 18:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Being mentioned in a newspaper and newsletter is good enough for me. XxLyLJeNNixX 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If true, of course. Would either of you mind sourcing that claim for us? RGTraynor 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems highly suspicious that the creator of this article, whose user name is XxTool7723xX, is supported by a new user with a similar name ofXxLyLJeNNixX, and was created around the time of this Afd, and whose only contribution is that vote. It is a little bit suspicious, thats all. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Daily News Wrestling Observer Independent Results from 2002 XxTool7723xX 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Image of BBA Results posted in Newsletter. As you must know, online identities that have Xx_____xX are quite common. You can check the IP addresses. XxTool7723xX 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Err ... that online wrestling link has a single BBA "event" listed in over a hundred event cattle call from March 2002, which fails the general notability bar of "trivial" coverage. The Daily News link is blocked to non-subscribers, but the paragraph header makes it plain that BBA is not "featured;" this is a generic article on backyard groups. RGTraynor 09:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Check again, the March 2002 Independent Results lists two BBA Results. For a page that only covers a month, two events are pretty good (This is not WWE, who has at least ten shows in a month). Craig 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Backyard Wrestling. It doesn't appear to be particularly notable at all, nor would there be a lot of significant information to put into such an article, but it is/was a legitimate entity nonetheless. While the information is not enough to warrant an actual article, I think there's nothing wrong with it being mentioned in there. Falcon 23:16, 7 June 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.