Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990s wrestling boom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, who present much stronger arguments when related to policy. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s wrestling boom

1990s wrestling boom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tricky one this. Firstly, the name seems to have been something that's completely made up. 1990s wrestling boom returns 21 unique hits ignoring Wikipedia and mirrors, and 3rd Golden Age of Wrestling allegedly ignoring Wikipedia and mirrors returns 3 unique hits, but 2 of those are actually mirrors and the other is a forum post. Searching for Third Golden Age of Wrestling returns equally few results as well. Secondly, we're not losing anything by deleting this article as everything seems to be reasonably well covered in History of professional wrestling and Monday Night Wars. One Night In Hackney303 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Very OR, redundant with other articles and such, need to trim and ditch these redundant "history of wrestling" articles. Biggspowd 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Pro Wrestling Illustrated was the magazine that named the "Golden Ages" and since they did not store most of their information online, that may be why there are so few hits about golden ages in wrestling. Also the supposed "OR" comes from other articles in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep A very good look at the history behind the latest boom in wrestling. A very good article, also. Kris 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Just because you think it's a "good article" or "interesting" doesn't mean it should be kept. Biggspowd 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A very important time in wrestling history. Very notable and historic.--Unopeneddoor 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So nominate it for merge instead MPJ-DK 11:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a nice article but it is original research. There are many resurgences but I don't believe they are all inclusive. the_undertow talk 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there are additional articles covering the same topic, shouldn't these articles be merged ? This topic is covered by numerous books and other sources. MadMax 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any information not already covered in the History of professional wrestling then redirect. Considering the wording of the nomination that would have been the most logical, helpful, positive action to take instead of just requesting it's deletion. MPJ-DK 11:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs some work and its possible a merge would be useful. But I don't think it merits deletion at present. JodyB talk 11:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. It's a POV fork of history of professional wrestling. Mangoe 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if theres anything in this page that isnt in history of professional wrestling it should just be added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Don.-.J (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, as per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge anything not redundant or POV into History of professional wrestling. If nothing can be salvaged, just delete and redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - OR, should be covered by History of professional wrestling. --YFB ¿ 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be sourced. Completely OR, and not even worth a merge into History of professional wrestling as it lacks sourcing. Arkyan • (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, as bad OR, as crufty bad OR, as unsourced crufty bad OR, as ... you get the point. Sandstein 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. I think the basis for this article's nomination, particularly its claims that the phrase is "made up" or rarely used, is a bit overexaggerated and in the context given seems to be taken a bit too literally. While it's true a search by the exact title may bring limited results on search engines such as Google, however a same search without quotes brings 96,900 hits. The history of wrestling streaches over a century or more and eventually the History of professional wrestling, which is already fairly large, will have to be broken up eventually. Source material has been provided in the article, which include several high profile books and an article by the Journal Standard, not only supporting the basis that there was a "wrestling boom" during the 1990s but an in depth study on the topic itself. With the deletion of this article, then I assume 1980s wrestling boom would have to be merged along with Monday Night Wars (and as its already been pointed out) several other articles related to the history of professional wrestling not to mention the other historical periods. MadMax 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You haven't provided sources, you've provided a long list of books. Sourcing doesn't work that way, you can't just add a list of books and claim the article is now sourced. One Night In Hackney303 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I provided books specificly written about the "wrestling boom" in the 1990s to illustrate that the topic is not original research as frequently claimed in this discussion. If you'll take note, they are under further reading and not directly referenced (in fact there was neither a {{reference}}, {{verify}}, {{original research}}, etc. provided prior to its nomination). If I implied that I specificly provided cited references rather then relevent source material, then I apologize if you misunderstood. However, despite claims to the contrary, the amount of independent, non trival and reliable source material devoted to this period clearly shows the topics notability. I'm sure the members of WP:PW would be able to provide adequate cited references to your concerns of original research if you care to provide the approriate {{fact}} templates in the claims and statements in question. MadMax 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There was no requirement for me to put any of those templates on the article prior to nominating it, as none of them cover the reasons for nomination. The fact remains that this subject is (or should be) adequately covered in the Monday Night Wars (which is a legitimate notable part of wrestling history) and/or History of professional wrestling. Proposing a merge would have been a waste of time, based on the number of wrestling fans who are !voting "Strong keep" in this very AfD which totally ignore why it's been nominated in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I never stated that you personally failed to add templates. My point was that templates had never been added to the article thus knowledgable editors, such as those in WP:PW, were unaware that the article was unreferenced, contained original research or any other concern which could have been adressed prior to its nomination. Monday Night Wars deals mainly with the RAW/Nitro competion of the WWF and WCW, however the "wrestling boom" of the 1990s began prior to the Monday Night Wars and doesn't cover nearly the scope as would 1990s wrestling boom. Neither does it address, for example, the rise of Extreme Championship Wrestling or the fall of the last of the regional territories such as Smokey Mountain Wrestling and the United States Wrestling Association which came as a result of the changing style of wrestling introduced by ECW. As for other editors votes, you did nominate this article because you claim the exact term 1990s wrestling boom brings up few Google hits so the term must be "completely made up" (whereas that same search of similar terms brings over 95,000 hits). Regardless of weither other editors are wrestling fans or not, nominating an article under these reasons might seem to other editors to be a bit of a stretch. This article does contain a lot more information then provided by History of professional wrestling, yet you propose its deletion because discussing merging this content would be a "waste of time". Please realize, I personally am neither accusing you of acting in bad faith or questioning your right to nominate this or any other wrestling-related article for deletion. However, considering how you go about it at times, its not unreasonable this might put editors on the defensive. MadMax 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, chock-full of synthesized original research. Burntsauce 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this article covers anything that doesn't already exist in other articles. The title itself seems kinda Original Research to me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:39, 7 May 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.