Talk:Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-05. The result of the discussion was Merge to Foreign object (professional wrestling).

Please don't delete this page as 'unencyclopedic'. There are quite a few people who insist on writing about this topic in the Thumbtack article, where it doen't belong. This is a place for those people to write.

To the "Thumbtacks in Westling" community: This is your chance to do something with your passion. Do Wikipedia proud and write a scholarly article with references, (properly licensed) pictures and so on. Prove potential critics of this esoteric article wrong. Let's see Wikipedia's first featured article on the Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling!.John Dalton 22:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Deletion

I oppose the proposal for deletion on the basis that "unencyclopedic" is a highly controversial reason (it is a subjective invented term). This article was created because this cruft was making its way into the Thumbtack article. It is a place for wrestling enthusiasts to write what they want without filling up the Thumbtack article or engaging in an edit war. As such this article serves a useful purpose. John Dalton 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and trivial information is unencyclopedic and trivial no matter where it is. Shunting it off into a separate article isn't the way to go. —Angr 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is now backed by multiple independent peer reviewed sources. As such it satisfies all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. (If not, please point out which ones it violates.) Objectively this article has a firmer foundation than most on Wikipedia. Unencyclopedic is a subjective point of view. I'm not a wrestling fan, and I was surprised at the academic interest in wrestling when I did go looking for sources. It turns out wrestling and weapons used is the subject of serious academic study.
If I can take the liberty of temporarily mounting a soapbox, it is not our job to make subjective "unencyclopedic" judgments on topics which do not interest us. If we did that Wikipedia would degenerate into a "deletion war" as everyone tried to eliminate things they didn't find interesting or relevant. To paraphrase: "One person's trivial is another person's facination". Rather than arbitrarily calling things "unencyclopedic" it is better to approach it with good faith and make a best effort to find sources first. Clearly this was not done before the proposal for deletion was made. John Dalton 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Deletion 2007-02-05

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.

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. John Dalton 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't mind doing the merge into Foreign object (professional wrestling). It might take me a few days to get around to it though. John Dalton 10:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)