Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament

Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website poll. Proposed deletion removed, so I'm placing it under AFD.  Oakster  Talk  09:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Delete It's just a poll on a website. It's clearly being used as an advertisement. TJ Spyke 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I'll have to give the creator the benefit of the doubt and assume s/he is simply a statistician because I would have some strong words for any fansite editor putting material like this on Wikipedia Suriel1981 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MarcK 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um WHAT? What in the hell is wrong with you people?>!?! It's just a bracket for a tournament that a very reputable wrestling website is doing. It's simply for people to get a visual feel of how the tournament is going. Frankly I could careless if it gets deleted. The tournament is almost over. Also, an explanation of the non-notable poll crap would be nice. The notice of deletion needs work. You need to explain more about WHY an article has been nominated. Also please show me where it says I can't have something like this up. MystiKalLimitz02 2:23, 31 March 2007

• Comment To be fair here, I can see from your user contribution history that you've visited Wikipedia:Introduction. On the "Learn More About Editing" page there it advises you to visit WP:5P and WP:NOT to check out policies. The following are reasons why the this article should be deleted WP:NOT#SOAP point 2; WP:NOT#IINFO point 5; and WP:N "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Suriel1981 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, is there any basis for your statement of the website's reputation? Suriel1981 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong As for those points, this is why they're wrong about my article. WP:NOT#SOAP point 2 is about self-promotion. With this article, there is no self-promotion. I had nothing to do with the setting up of this tournament and had nothing to do with the results. I just posted them for the people who created it so they could have a visual feel of what was going on in the tournament. As for WP:NOT#IINFO point 5; It does have merrit but in my defense, I'm a college student who has very little time and I did plan on updating the article to have more stuff about the website it came from. I just needed a little more time than what you guys seem to want to give. And as for the last thing about the notability. I think that's very subjective. It's all in what the user thinks is important. My article is non-biased. There isn't just one person deciding who wins what. I know I need to add more stuff to make it Wikipedia friendly and if given that chance I will. I didn't know a tournament would cause such fuss. It's not like I'm one of those guys editing other peoples stuff about important things and adding in immature sexual references to stuff.

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.