Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical 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 Delete as nobody is contesting this. Yomangani^talk 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical wrestling

Short dictdef article which does not provide any references/sources. Seems like WP:OR, and thus should be deleted per the WP:V policy. Original author stated that he could not provide any references/sources. Contested prod. Leuko 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What I put in the article is simply a re-writting of something that appeared (and I recently deleted) in the Hulk Hogan article. The definition of this term was present in the article, where it was not needed, since people at all familiar with the industry know what the term means, and people not familiar with the industry could click the link the the article I made. I also imagine that a search though other wrestlers' pages would find similar redudancies.

I do not believe that this article belongs in the wiki dictionary, since, while it is only a definition now, it could be expanded into a full length article listing things such as famous wrestlers known for a strong technical ability, technical moves, schools that focus on this style, and much more.

This is not OR!Acewolf359 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Delete. Technical wrestling as such isn't a noteworthy concept - the noteworthiness comes from the wrestlers who implement the style. At best, a page on technical wrestling as a style of professional wrestling would be a dictionary definition and a list of wrestlers who arguably wrestle a technical style. Dealing with style on a particular wrestler's page is, in my opinion, a better way to do it. Mytildebang 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Put a sentence in the appropriate wrestling article, and, if you're really enthusiastic, a redirect. But it's not notable enough on its own. WMMartin 18:15, 27 November 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.