Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

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]}}

This article provides insufficient content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited and the article is subject to vandalism regularly by users shown to be using "sock puppets". Vandal paradise, especially popular for edit wars. -- 3bulletproof16 17:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I find the timing of this Afd a bit suspicious, as an admin (DeathPhoenix) has been involved in the process to render a final version of the article that conforms to standards. Nevertheless, there are other usenet groups on Wikipedia. Many entries are subject to more vandalism than this one and your statement "insufficient context for those unfamiliar" makes absolutely NO logical sense whatsoever. Work to improve the entry has been marred by ONE user: Chadbryant, and this situation is currently being dealt with. TruthCrusader 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed unverifiable information and have provided links to verify the number of posts. Honestly, why is an Afd being proposed for an entry that is in the middle of being brought up to Wiki standards? TruthCrusader 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's much better now. But in my opinion the article is still sourced only to http://www.rspw.org/ and I don't think that meets the reliable source standards, which say "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." Now, one might say that the newsgroup itself is its own source, but I don't see how you can use it as for general, overall statements about the newsgroup itself without performing original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "highly suspicious"... No I am not affiliated with anyone involved in your apparent dispute, if that's what you mean by "highly suspicious". However what I am aware of is that the article lacks sufficient content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Not only was the information there unreliable, but no sources were even cited. The article has also been subject to numerous edit wars even after an apparent consensus was made. The continuous disputes with yourself and whatever other parties involved are for you to handle so it is irrelevant to the AFD. But just because the article is being nominated for deletion does not mean it can't be improved. Like I said in the edit summary, feel free to edit it. Oh and BTW, if you're going to Requests for comment, I would highly suggest that you read the instructions listed at the top first and Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~.. --3bulletproof16 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have answered your comments on your talk page.TruthCrusader 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect that very few individual Usenet newsgroups, even old ones out of the Big 8 hierarchy, are worthy subjects for individual encyclopedia articles. As far as I can tell we don't even have an article yet for the rec.* hierarchy. If there's a reason why this specific group is worthier than others of its ilk, I am open to persuasion. Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. None of the conditions mentioned in the nomination are valid reasons for deletion. If there's insufficient content, expand it; if sources aren't cited, find sources and cite them; if vandalism occurs, revert it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The verifiability policy says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • True but irrelevant. A lack of sources is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. (Now, if sources simply don't exist, that would indeed be a reason to remove the unverifiable information, and, if that leaves the article with no content, then that's a reason for deletion.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • And it is a reason which appears to me to apply to this article, as http://www.rspw.org/ is the only source, and I don't think it meets the reliable source guidelines. It seems to me that if this newsgroup is really important, there ought to be a book or a wrestling magazine article that says so, and if someone quotes that in the article with a proper citation I'm quite prepared to change my recommendation. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

www.rspw.org is NOT cited as a source on the entry. It is only put down as an external link. The source for the number of posts, which is the ONLY information in the entry, is cited through Google, which is really the ONLY way to get a source for the number of posts a usenet group has. I repeat, NOWHERE on the entry is rspw.org used as a cite or source of ANY kind. TruthCrusader 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• (Changing vote, see below) Deleteas completely idiosyncratic non-topic because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No sources cited that would indicate that this particular newsgroup is important outside of its own readership. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then explain the existence of the other usenet groups currently having an entry on Wikipedia. TruthCrusader 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Inconsistency, which is to be expected. If you want perfect consistency and policy administered with the even-handedness of Solomon, you want a command-and-control encyclopedia. There is a good deal of content in Wikipedia which does not accord with Wikipedia's policies. As I write this, there is an article in Wikipedia entitled Andrew Greiner whose entire content is "Andrew Greiner is an amazing person." That is not an argument for keeping another article with similar content. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If so then why has the entry for rspw been around for over a year, and had many comments posted by various editors, none of whom saw fit to nominate it for an Afd. Also, if you feel this way than why haven't you slapped Afd's on the rest of the useless usenet articles? TruthCrusader 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. ) In this discussion, I am expressing an opinion on this particular article.
        2. ) If any of these other unspecified articles is nominated for deletion, and if I happen to read that discussion, and if, on inspection, it appears to me that deleting the material in it that does not meet the verifiability policy would amount to blanking the article, then I will express the opinion that that other article should be deleted.
        3. ) If, in the normal course of working on articles that interest me, I happen to encounter a link to an article on a USENET group that contains no verifiable content, I will nominate it for deletion myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As long as one user with an agenda is allowed to abuse the system and censor valid and verifiable content from the article (rendering it pointless), the article doesn't need to exist. - Chadbryant 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish to point out, the above user is the one who has been trying to insert unverifiable and uncited sources. He has already reverted the entry after I removed the information that caused this Afd. This can be verified by visiting the entry talk page. TruthCrusader 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see absolutely no reason for deletion. While professional wrestling as a mainstream medium in the entertainment industry (and, to a point, the world of sports) has wained in the last several years, becoming not as popular as it once was in the late 1990s/early 2000s, that does not mean that it no longer holds a legitimate place in popular culture OR on the Internet. Now, as per regards to that, rec.sport.pro-wrestling is one of several HUNDRED THOUSAND discussion groups on Usenet. Therefore, it stands to reason that even the most seasoned veteran, from the guys who put the first computer together in the 1960s to Bill Gates and his Microsoft cronies in the 21st century, would not necessarily know what the newsgroup is, or even what Usenet is if questioned about the subject. HOWEVER, that does not mean that an entry on Wikipedia for it must be deleted. To argue that this entry should be removed based on the fact that one person has had a personal agenda to see his information placed onto the article is ridiculous. The entry -- while copiously changed thanks to trolls such as Mr. Chadbryant -- still gives a valid, informative definition on what RSPW is as a whole. No one person should be allowed to sway the balance of a Wikipedia article, and it seems to me that Chadbryant is simply laying on an immature level of "You guys won't play the way I want to, so I'm taking my ball and going home." It's just that since this is Wikipedia, he has to have the approval of the group before he grabs the ball. Keep the article, but semi-protect it and make sure that Chadbryant is aware that he is not the only person on Wikipedia. --Dooby Scoo 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zetawoof. Spacepotato 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable, reliable outside sources are provided. Handwaving is not a reliable source. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP If you delete this newsgroup's entry, then every other newsgroup with a wikipedia entry must also be summarily deleted. WillC 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  and your logic makes sense how? If you delete a biography of a politician as unverifiable, does that mean that all biographies of politicians must be also deleted? Your argument is nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  While I agree that we should keep this article, I don't think that the Pokémon argument| is a strong argument. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A lack of content or verifable sources has never stopped a Wikipedia entry before. If you write a letter, then before you mail it decide to add additional content, does that mean that the person you were sending the letter to should decide to ignore the whole thing if they were to find out what you did? This entire arguement has no substance. It appears to be more of a personal agenda by one or two persons rather than an actual question of the article; as a result, to delete it would not only be unjust and unfair to those who have attempted to keep it as legitimate as possible while removing material placed there by trolls, but at the same time it would say a lot in a negative sense for Wikipedia in general. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that this Web site advertised itself as a "free encyclopedia." I think I've even heard it called the one that "anyone can edit." With that in mind, sure you are going to have articles that lack content, or sources, or seem a bit awry. But that's going to happen to a lot of articles -- not just rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Looking at the history of the edit of the article, I can see where attempts have been made to keep the article in check with Wikipedia policy, as well as update it whenever possible. Given that this is a newsgroup on Usenet, however, and not say breaking news or anything current, that may have proven to be difficult in the past or it may even become difficult in the future. But if, for example, (and I know this is a bit of a stretch), the article on Richard Nixon was not added to or placed with additional sources due to the fact that his Presidency has been over for quite some time and he's passed on for more than decade now, should that mean that someone should come along and request his entry on Wikipedia be deleted? Or should the entry be polished up with whatever facts may have been overlooked, or possibly the article could be written in a better format by those authors and writers who have had no only experience writing on Wikipedia, but offline as well? I guess what I'm trying to say in this long-winded statement is that the article, while flimsy and questionable due to a certain individual attempting to modify it in a way that seems to have been regarded as incorrect or trolling, that does NOT mean that it should come along and be removed. It should instead be kept to the highest standards that an article such as that can be kept (and let's face it, since it's RSPW that's not exactly the best, but whatever works) and it should also be scrutinized and watched carefully for when such trolls as the one or two individuals involve come along and attempt to change the article for their liking, either in a malicious attempt or other such immature behavior. --Writers Block 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The reasoning that "other articles lack sources so its ok" is fallacious in the extreme. That's analogous to claiming that because one person may have gotten away with murder, murder is ok. If an article lacks verifiable sources, they need to be added. If they do not exist, the article needs to be deleted as unverifiable. This isn't a blog. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A lack of content or verifable sources has never stopped a Wikipedia entry before. — Lack of sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles. I thought that this Web site advertised itself as a "free encyclopedia." — It is an encyclopaedia that adheres to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. There are projects that do not. This project does. Uncle G 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.tv.real-world, Wikipedia is not a directory, be it of people, companies, web sites, or Usenet newsgroups. For an article to be worthwhile, there needs to be scope for expansion of the article to be more than a simple directory entry. There needs to be secondary source material published and available that is more substantial than simple directory listings and excerpts from "active" files. Usenet newsgroups that have had multiple non-trivial works published about them (such as FAQs on faqs.org. for example) qualify for articles on this basis. This newsgroup has a FAQ on faqs.org. Keep. Uncle G 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, AfD is not a substitute for the cleanup and cite tags, nor is being a vandal magnet a good reason for deletion. This newsgroup is indeed notable enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep mostly per UncleG, but also because TruthCrusader has cleaned up the worst problems with unsourced opinion. The article is now a stub which acceptably indicates the sources for the traffic numbers. The description of the forum is not referenced to anything; for the time being I'm going to assume that people glancing at the actual forum content would take it to be an adequate and non-controversial description (which still doesn't meet WP:V, of course). I would be much, much happier though if the article cited some good mainstream sources indicating the importance of the group: a news interview with a wrestler who says he follows rec.sport.pro-wrestling to see what people are saying about them, or a wrestling magazine recommending rec.sport.pro-wrestling as a good discussion venue... or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Found a book mention that calls it "the largest online discussion forum for wrestling," see article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not feel that the article establishes notability. McPhail 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A major pro wrestling star, Stevie Richards repeatedly wore an "Rapw sucks" shirt to several ECW shows and a PPV in 1995. Doesn't that constitute notability? How are the other usenet groups profiled on Wiki any more notable? TruthCrusader 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being mentioned on a wrestler's t-shirt is grounds for an article, no. McPhail 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not alone, but we were looking for examples of other mediums that have mentioned rspw...the fact that a known wrestler on a ppv sported an rspw shirt is notable. WillC 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles on the other USENET groups are not relevant here, we're discussing this article. The relevant guideline is WP:WEB, not the content of other articles. (I happen to think now that rec.sport.pro-wrestling does meet that guideline... barely). The content of other articles would only be relevant if it were crystal-clear that the Wikipedian community had judged them to be representative of good practice; for example, if they had been featured articles.Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is a wikipedia entry for Internet Wrestling Community gives the RSPW entry a permanent place here. RSPW is the first thing mentioned. WillC 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just because Stevie Richards wore an RSPW t-shirt doesn't mean it warrants an article on Wikipedia. In the discussion for Bleeding Was Only Half the Job, your argument (This is to TruthCrusader) was that even though Ron Jeremy has endorsed a project it doesn't mean that it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Applied to this topic, that argument would make your Stevie Richards claim not stand.JB196 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but the difference is that "Bleeding was only half the job" was a vanity entry made by yourself, promoting a book being written by YOU that may or may not ever be written. Big difference. TruthCrusader 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was written by myself is not relevent as there is no Wikipedia policy saying an entry can't be written by the person who it is about. Personally, I think rspw deserves an entry on WP as it has played a significant role in the development of the IWC so I am voting Keep. That being said I think the current entry needs some work.JB196 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And believe it or not, i DO appreciate your contributions to the entry, even if we disagree on most of them :) TruthCrusader 07:30, 20 July 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.