Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeding Was Only Half the Job

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 Deleted at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleeding Was Only Half the Job

I - the author of this entry - concede that the afD is stacked up in favor of "delete" and support the deletion of this entry whenever a moderator is able to perform such action.JB196 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC):::

Many are concerned that this is a vanity article that doesn't meet WP:WEB; hopefully we can settle this here. William Pietri 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP-See below comment.JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT-Well I will just reiterate some points that I have stated already.

<<<Mainstream celebrities such as Ron Jeremy and Verne Langdon have endorsed it. To say that it is not notable is entirely ignoring that fact. It has also been unofficially endorsed by pro wrestler Chris Hamrick. Wrestling superstars such as Shane Douglas, Jerry Lynn, Chris Hamrick, and Missy Hyatt have done exclusive interviews for it. Adult film stars Kristi Myst and Lizzy Borden also read the retrospective. Verne Langdon has unofficially endorsed it, and Kevin Kleinrock (the former VICE PRESIDENT of XPW) has officially endorsed it.

<<<It is PRINTED on sites which Wikipedia considers "Verifiable." The information printed in the retrospective comes from people who were in XPW. None of that specific information is published here; All it is saying is that the information is published in the RETROSPECTIVE. So the argument that there should be a "Verifiability" tag on the article is not a fair assessment.

<<<ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the web sites that the articles are printed on - was featured in Harley Race's autobiography and has also gotten other coverage. At WP:WEB it says The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The OWW site is definitely "well known" and has received mainstream coverage as mentioned above. So I would think it meets that WP:WEB guideline. If OWW is not notable, then over 100 wrestler profiles should be edited on Wikipedia because htey include OWW.com as a reference.JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • COMMENT

The problem I have with the article is that it clearly refers to something that does not exist. It is an article about someone intending to write and publish a book rather than a page about a published book. An article about someone intending to write a book seems like vanity to me. Minus the book, this is an article about a collection of short pieces written for the web and posted on a few websites. That would seem to fail the test 168.127.0.51 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment* While I do not have a formal vote on this AfD (I have a mediation going on with the author on another article, so my neutrality is compromised), would it have been better if the Wiki entry was written by someone OTHER then the person who is writing the series of articles? In other words, if we remove the "endorsements" (Sorry, JB, Ron Jeremy endorsing it (paid or unpaid) shouldn't be notable), and focus on what the series of articles ALREADY PRINTED covers (namely, XPW's history), Reference that it's a series of ongoing articles and try to remain NPOV, I think it would be ok. SirFozzie 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ronnie did it unpaid. I don't see why you would question that, as it could be considered a violation of WP:AGF. I am fine with having somebody else writing it. Although I don't see how the endorsement of such a high-level mainstream celebrity shouldn't be mentioned. I mean, he is THE RON JEREMY. Not to lose focus, but how can one argue that Lance Storm's criticism of DVDVR should be included in that article and yet argue that Ron Jeremy shouldn't be included here? With all due respect, that argument holds zero ground because without the mention of who has participated in/endorsed it, OF COURSE it's not notable, because its just a creation by a fan. It's the fact that such notable people have attached their name to it that makes it notable. Also, you are a DVDVR board poster and you wrote the entry for that site that should be kept mind when you suggested that someone other than myself write the entry.JB196 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And now folks can see why I took the other case to mediation.*shrug* Tried to extend the olive branch, but got it thrown back in my face. SirFozzie 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just responding to your claims. There was no hostility anywhere in my reply.JB196 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE Just a vanity page about something that does not exsist and does not belong on Wikipedia--72.130.161.161 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find anything notable in here. An upcoming retrospective? What does that mean? Ron Jeremy "endorsing" it doesn't mean anything, because it is not a commercial product. I never will be a commercial product either, because no publisher will touch anything that has already been published on the web for free. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt that most of the wrestlers who are being interviewed were honest with the author. I think this article should be deleted.75.2.219.164 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think a page is needed for an upcoming internet article, and certainly not for an upcoming internet article on such a fringe subject.66.46.138.11 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The site is being made by a sexy man named Ethan Feldman, who lives in NYC. BOW DOWN TO HIM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.142.167 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2006 UTC.
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A large percentage of what he writes is untrue and cannot be proven. 69.234.25.179 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Delete as original research, though the sockpuppetry is absurd. Wickethewok 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel it first fails WP:WEB. Above quoted is A3 of this: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." However, the last line too of WP:WEB is quite explicit - "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." That's the failure, IMO. The article cannot assume passing WP:WEB because the entire site is considered notable (as OWW may well be in terms of, e.g., its wrestling profile data).
This suggests other criteria must be weighed up. I personally think this article fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy implicitly, since the author is writing the article themselves. It obviously fails notability criteria for books, since the book artefact does not yet exist. For that reason, it also fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, since the text of the article clearly refers to a future publication, and asks the reader implicitly to trust that it will be notable when it arrives. Finally, it seems to go against the vanity guideline that states:

Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

"Overtly promotional" would appear to me to be the tone of those celebrity endorsements. Celebrities endorse many products that would not fulfill WP notability criteria. Drawing attention to their endorsement of a yet-to-be-released project appears, to me, "overtly promotional". The notability should come from neutral and reliable third party sources with zero interest in the project's genesis, not the testimony of people involved in its creation and promotion.
Taken as a whole, and with nothing personal against the editor whatsoever, I feel these factors - taken all together along with all the foregoing discussion (which I have read with great interest) - constitute a delete IMHO. I have tried to weigh up all the evidence here in good faith, so apologies for the length of this comment. --DaveG12345 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure vanity piece, the darn thing doesn't even exist yet and may not ever. TruthCrusader 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Trying to push the content of your article back into the XPW article isn't a sign of good faith. 168.127.0.51 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd agree that's inappropriate. It seems like a fine external link, but see WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO about why you should avoid editing Wikipedia articles about yourself and your projects. --William Pietri 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it to Parsonburg's edit. He is the one who put it there, not me.JB196 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You have readded the material at least four times [1] [2] [3] [4], so I don't think saying it's somebody else's fault quite explains the situation. It still looks like self-promotion to me, and your comments make it clear that your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process. If people think the material belongs elsewhere, they they can suggest a merge. --William Pietri 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The readding of the material were reverts to Parsonburg's edit.
"your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process."
William, I expect better from you in terms of following WP:AFG. That is not my intent at all and I am upset that you would think that it is. Also see talk page of XPW for more info.JB196 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverting to somebody else's edit does not absolve you of responsibility, especially in a case where you have a stake in this. As to good faith, I certainly tried to assume it, but your edit comments include "Paulley the entry for BWOHTJ is going to be up for deletion in a few days. If it passes afD without being deleted then we can take it off this page, but until now I'm putting it back on" and "readded Bleeding Was Only Half the Job info as the entry is going to be deleted". I was unable to come up with an explanation other than that you were determined to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion. What interpretation do you feel I should be making instead? Thanks, --William Pietri 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If my intention was "to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion" then wouldn't I have continued to revert Paulley's edits to my version rather than say "(sounds good)"? Of course. That is where I see flaw in your interpretation. Sometimes people make misjudgments like I did; I am not saying you violated WP:AGF because I know where you are comiong from, all I am saying is to use language that so strongly casts me as someone I'm not ("dodge the community concensus" has a very strong connotation). Something that I think has gotten lost in a lot of this is that from the very beginning I have done everything I could to try to make any mention of BWOHTJ on Wikipedia fit to Wikipedia's standards. To deny this is simply ignore the NUMEROUS examples of my edit summaries along the lines of "Let's try to work out a wording for this that we can both agree on" and various modifications of that summary.JB196 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're trying to work with other people on wording. However, you haen't addressed my main point: You don't seem to be following WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. The consensus is pretty clearly that this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you add the material into another article, as yet another edit comment today [5] suggests that you intend to do, then that is dodging the community consensus. I'm glad you're excited about your project, but Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If you can't bear to lose to the material, move it to your user page, where it's perfectly appropriate. William Pietri 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, your arguments have failed to convince anyone. The best you can expect now is a link in external links on the xpw article. The edit history on that article today shows exactly what you have done and shows an unwillingness to compromise as far as I'm concerned. People have told you over and over again that you can't write about a book that doesn't exist. 64.12.116.6 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Most people who looked at my edits objectively would easily see that "an unwillingness to compromise" is the last thing that my edits show. If you are tryiing to argue that I am not willing to compromise then you really have not been paying any attention.JB196 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any proof that the author has talked to the people involved in this article? Also, the retrospective has been announced for two years now and nothing has been done since aside from two parts. This should be deleted in my opinion. 75.1.241.188 23:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all forthcoming historical retrospectives Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Sasaki 04:19, 29 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Bleeding_Was_Only_Half_the_Job_c00e.html"