Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional 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 Merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:52Z

[edit] Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

a nn topic, very specialized and borders on original research. Comes off as an essay and isn't really doesn't need it's own article. Violates various aspects of WP:NOT Booshakla 08:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE - It seems that the lengthy comments by User:John Dalton were moved to the bottom by another editor to ease readability of the debate. Please place new comments and !votes above the "comments" heading unless you want to respond directly to him. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep See comments below. John Dalton 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would just like to point out that the above user created the article, so they have a vested interest in the article and their discussion should be heavily discounted. Personally, this is one of the worst pages I have ever seen on WP, and there is no reason whatsoever why it should be kept. It's the most cruftiest topic I have ever seen. Booshakla 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling); it's not worth having a separate article just for this. —Angr 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge All of the sources offer only a trivial mention of the use of thumbtacks. Definitely non-notable. Resolute 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. Doesn't need an article of its own. Is mentioned in Hardcore wrestling already. Existing article Thumbtack explains what they are. Sources aren't about thumbtacks, they just discuss them as part of the wider issues. --Dave. 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete subject is not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. If its already mentioned in the other articles noted above. I'm happy to delete --Madmedea 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Angr -- Whpq 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial plain and simple.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is actually strong case for deletion, maybe it will be mreged, and no case to keep it. The page is total dreck, unencyclopedic, and it doesn't belong here. And I suggest that you don't write long ditribes insulting the other editors and cluttering the page. The afd guidelines do discourage those with a vested interest (like creating the article) from voting, or at least having their opinions discounted. And if you don't like it, tough. There's plenty of other notable articles to create or fix, and this is not one of them. Booshakla 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge The first two sources only mention thumbtacks in passing, and don't substantiate either claim. The third source is a thesis by a University student, and fails WP:RS and possibly WP:OR in my opinion. Fails WP:V. One Night In Hackney 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling).Edison 05:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial, borderline notable but trivial nonetheless. Normy132 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (Weak Merge) John Dalton makes a strong case in his dissection of the AfD in the comments below. Booshakla's stated reasions for deletion are weak on their face and mostly opinion. However, I would agree to this articles merger with Foreign object (professional wrestling) as Angr suggested (assuming such a merger won't put Foreign object (professional wrestling) in danger of exceeding WP:SIZE ) --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

— VladamireSteelwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment After some contemplation, I've decided to change my opinion to a Strong Keep and remove my support of a Merge with Foreign object (professional wrestling). If the WWE's Spanish announcers' table deserves it's own entry, something like Thumbtacks, which have been used in multiple matches in multiple promotions, certainly has the notibility to deserve it's own entry. Also, Foreign object (professional wrestling) appears to be a general discription of the use of Foreign objects in professional wrestling rather than going into specifics about the items themselves. --Vladamire Steelwolf 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hope that people will look at this edit made by this user [1] which I find very insulting and harsh, saying that WP editors should have an IQ requirement (I have college degree) and that I am stubborn and worthless. You are totally wrong, and very disruptive. Booshakla 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That the Spanish announcers' table has an article is an argument to be avoided, that article is not under consideration for deletion. One Night In Hackney 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Everything in this article can go in the foreign objects article. This article is a stub, and it always will be. It cannot be expanded without the insertion of random information. This unexpandable stub's purpose would be better served as a part of Foreign object (professional wrestling). -- The Hybrid 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to request for an early close on this AFD, it is pretty clear that consensus has been reached, and the arguments aren't leading anywhere. Booshakla 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Foreign object (professional wrestling). There is some stuff worth noting, but not enough for its own article. TJ Spyke 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is such an absurdly minor and insignificant branch of wrestling that we can be rid of it. Add it to a list of things used in the field, but most of the article is unattributed, and probably unattributable (I removed four references that did not support the statements they were attached to). Clearly fails the primary notability criterion, which requires multiple, independent (of the subject and each other), reliable sources on the topic. Chris cheese whine 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comments

A first proposal for deletion has already been answered on the talk page of the article. I reproduce the original proposal and its rebuttal here.

Original Proposal:

essay, nn, uncyclopedic

Rebuttal:

I object to this proposal for deletion. I refute the arguments put forward for deltion as follows:

essay. By essay, I presume that the proposer is referring to the policy that is not to contain essays stating a personal opinion. This article is not an essay and contains no personal opinion. Every sentence is a fact and is drawn from a reference independent of the author, as such the accusation of essay status is false.

nn. I presume 'nn' means non-notable. Notability states "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This article draws from four independent sources. In addition three of the sources are peer reviewed. As such the article well and truly exceeds the criteria for notability and has a stronger claim to notability than most Wikipedia articles.

uncyclopedic. According to the Category:Articles_which_may_be_unencyclopedic page, unencyclopedic means the article fails to pass Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The claim of unencyclopedic is false as the article passes all these tests. The proposer needs to point out which, if any, tests on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this article fails.

As directed in the template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.", so I am removing the template.

The original proposer has gone on to reinstate the proposal and modify the reasons given. The proposer seems to be taking a shotgun approach, where if enough allegations are made one will hit the target. To answer this new set of allegations:

nn. Already answered above. This article exceeds the notability guidelines.

very specialized. Specialization has never been a reason to delete from Wikipedia. By the same criteria any one of thousands of physics, mathematics, or any field of endeavour that requires a high level qualification would also have to be deleted.

borders on original research. Nearly every aspect of the article comes from a peer reviewed publication. The allegation of original research is baseless. One or two statements do not yet have references, but these are not original research and are definitely not grounds for deletion. Again, if every article that had a minority of unsourced statements was deleted nearly every Wikipedia article would have to be deleted.

essay. Answered above. There is no point of view or personal opinion being pushed in the article. Essay seems to be the proposors personal point of view, with no objective basis.

doesn't need it's own article. Personal opinion of the proposer. Please back this up with reasons based on Wikipedia policy.

Violates various aspects of WP:NOT. A sweeping statement. Please state exactly which aspects of WP:NOT are being violated.

I will point out that the proposer has made no attempt to answer the rebuttal given to the original proposal to delete. Instead the proposer put up another proposal with modified reasons. The proposer seems to think that it is not necessary to justify his/her position but that it is sufficient to just repeat it.

To quote from Wikipedia:Deletion_process: "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." and "So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing."

What it says is that the deletion process is not a popularity contest. Rather it is to be policy based. Let me answer each commenter:

Booshakla: You are putting words into my mouth. Your conclusion is baseless. Yes I did create the article. No I don't have a vested interest in it and personally have no interest in professional wrestling. I am defending this article to prevent abuse of the Wikipedia deletion process. Every objection you have to the article has been answered, yet your only response is to repeat the allegations louder. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_process you need to prove that the article violates policy and not attack the messenger.

Simply calling for deletion is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. At the minimum you need to be able to back a call for deletion with valid arguments. Better still contribute to improve the article in question.

Angr: Merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling). That is a useful suggestion.

Resolute A source does not have to be specifically about a topic. For example, many species of plants or animals only get a passing mention in publications, but would rate a mention in Wikipedia. Be careful that your opposition is not subjective.

Dave. As above for your point about sources. A useful point about the Hardcore wrestling article, though overlap between articles is not a reason for deletion. Being a complete subset might be. Articles may need to repeat material to be self contained.

Madmedea You point about notability has been refuted. If this article violates the notability guideline, so do most in Wikipedia.

Whpq this is not a popularity vote, so "as per above" does not contribute anything new to the discussion.

Dmz5*Edits**Talk* That is a personal opinion and has no place in this discussion. Please back your position by referring to policy.

To restate. The only "vested" interest I have is to prevent abuse of the wikipedia deletion process. So far there is no case for deletion and a weak case for a merge. John Dalton 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It is not necessarily helpful to commandeer an AfD page in this way.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have real concerns with the direction the AfD process heads at times. My understanding is that the AfD process is not about voting. As such there is no need for abstention from voting due to interest. Rather than being a vote the keep/delete statement is a one word summary so each reader knows where the commenter is coming from. I understand the AfD process to be about putting forward the pros and cons of deleting an article in accordance with wikipedia policy. Once the cycle of pros and cons has run its course hopefully a clear answer has emerged on what to do. It concerns me that some see the process as a "yes/no" vote where the majority rules. Are my concerns shared? John Dalton 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here are some questions to consider. What if there was an article called "Use Of Daggers By Roman Gladiators". Would you have the same feelings towards that article as to this one? Are your attitudes towards this article being influenced by wrestling being seen as "common man's" entertainment? Do you think the "scholarly" field of gladiators is more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than today's wrestlers? Why? Hopefully these questions will aid people's objectivity. John Dalton 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the use of daggers was a side-issue in terms of the overall topic of gladiatorial combat, and there was already an article about the use of other weapons or other styles of gladiatorial combat than the norm, then yes, I would feel the same. Hence my suggestion that this can be covered in or merged with Hardcore wrestling or Foreign object (professional wrestling). In my opinion, the use of thumbtacks is a complete subset of Hardcore wrestling. --Dave. 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete at _best_ this information should be a tiny section of a wrestling article. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling). Referenced information that seems fairly likely to be looked up by wrestling fans. VegaDark 08:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's a totally asinine assumption. Who is going to search for this page using those exact terms of the page title? Booshakla 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. One does not need to type in the exact terms of the page title. If one types in the text "thumbtacks wrestling" in the search box, a list of possibly matching articles is returned with Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling as the first result. -- Whpq 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about WP:CIVIL, I'm right. And would anyone ever type in that for any reason? I'm not certain. Booshakla 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider being WP:CIVIL, as it is an official policy. -- Whpq 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is doubtfut that anyone is going to use this exact title as a search term but as per Whpq you don't need to type in the exact term to be able to find it. And as per above, please try and stay civil. VegaDark 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure a standalone article is warrented, but a merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling) is a good idea. Suggest an interested party do a merge instead of just dropping it on the closing admin.--Isotope23 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is trivial to the point that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Liberal Classic 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Govvy 00:39, 11 February 2007 (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.