Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonica Deadwater

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. WjBscribe 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demonica Deadwater

Demonica Deadwater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

nn independent wrestling manager, gets less than 200 Ghits, no WP:RS Biggspowd 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons Article Should NOT Be Deleted Biggspowd already tried to nominate this article as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion and it was DENIED. Now Biggspowd is trying to have this article deleted again based on the same generally unfounded claims of non-notability.

This article is about a notable female independent professional wrestling manager. Cause for Demonica Deadwater's notability is listed on the article's talk page and in the article itself. The article asserts the subject's importance and significance, and that is why Biggspowd's attempt to have it speedy deleted was DENIED.

Ghits are irrelevant. It is a new article and if ghits are the measure of the importance of an article, then lots of valuable resources would be lost from Wikipedia.

The article has reliable sources. Threat's Official Fan Site has photos, videos, and news articles that have been around as long (and in some cases longer) than Wikipedia itself and Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.because the authors of the articles at Threat's Official Fan Site are first person witnesses to Demonica Deadwater's professional wrestling managerial career. You can get no more authoritative than that.

If Biggspowd doesn't care for the article, then Biggspowd can go edit pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. Biggspowd's claim that Demonica Deadwater is non-notable is generally unfounded. Kotterpin 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Just because it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion doesn't mean the article should be kept. 2)The article has no reliable sources (fan sites are usually not reliable sources). TJ Spyke 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, she appears to be nothing more than another indy manager. TJ Spyke 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, if you had read the talk page, you would see the only reason the admin declined the speedy delete request is because their is a CLAIM of notability. WP:CSD says an article can't be speedy deleted if their is a claim of notability (that doesn't mean it is notable, just that whoever wrote the article says it is). TJ Spyke 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The usual poor to non-existent secondary sources, I don't see notability here, I'm afraid. Only 17 unique Ghits [1]EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wrestlecruft... google hits (or lack thereof) doesn't change the fact that this doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion. Also, I suggest reading the reliable source guidelines to determine what is actually a reliable source (fansites don't cut it). /Blaxthos 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I did read what a reliable source was, and it said nothing about fansites, especially a fan site that has newspaper-length articles written by a staff of writers. Again, Threat's Official Fan Site is more than just a typical fan site, it is a news site- a repository of photos, videos, and news articles detailing his career and the careers of those who he works most closest with, written by a staff of news writers independent of the subject who cover the matches in similar (and usually in even more) detail as other pro-wrestling news sites. His fan site is independent of the subject of the article. His fan site is authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and that is the exact definition of a reliable source. Shelly Martinez has fewer cited sources than Demonica Deadwater and there is no dicussion about her reliable sources. Demonica Deadwater has been around longer than Shelly Martinez (she's been around since TJ Spyke was a freshman in high school, years before TJ Spyke could drive, and for 3 years while TJ Spyke had to take parents so TJ Spyke could watch a Rated-R movie at the theater), and "fame" or "importance" are not the definition of notability so you can't say just because Martinez is on ECW and Demonica isn't, then that makes Martinez notable and Demonica "nothing more than an indy manager" because Demonica has more cited sources from news articles archived on the Internet for years written by trustworthy authors who have covered her career in it's entirety so far. "Nothing more than an indy manager" is an opinionated statement and therefore should not be considered when dedciding on whether to delete the article or not. Definition: A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Go and look at Shelly Martinez' article. No reliable sources whatsoever for the bulk of the article including stats. On Martinez' page it claims she performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez. Where is the only place on the entire Internet where you can find a news article detailing the fact that Martinez performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez? Threat's Official Fan Site. It covers her match vs. Perez in detail and provides photographic and video coverage as well. That's the only place to find that information listed on Martinez' page so I believe that makes Threat's Official Fan (News) Site a credible, very reliable source for Wikipedia information. Thank you. If "fame" or "importance" is not the true definition of notability, then the statement "Nothing more than an indy manager" has no bearing on the topic at hand because the Demonica Deadwater article has plenty of cited sources in the form of news articles written by various news writers and archived at a news site which is labeled a fan site because that is the bulk of the readers- fans. Just like any other pro-wrestling news site. Do not delete this article. Kotterpin 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, no notability. Kotterpin, please also give WP:WAX a good read, and at the risk of WP:BEANS, might I also point you at WP:LAWYER as well, since you also seem to see fit to quote policy that this very article violates? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I don't spend my life on Wikipedia, I don't pride myself on censoring other people's articles, and I don't appreciate people on power trips trying to shove their Wiki-prowess and terminology down my throat. If the administrators feel this article should be deleted then so be it, but I am not going to participate in a Wiki-trial against people who spend their lives on this board to feel some sort of sense of accomplishment and get off on spewing "I suggest you read this..." and "You're a Wiki-cliche" at me for being new here. I read it and adhered the criteria, stated good cause for the article not to be deleted, and someone comes on here and tells me that the rules don't apply to my article because there are rules that state my valid argument is a cliche. This is a whirlwind of negativity over an article if you people didn't like, then you didn't have to read.

Goodbye and whatever happens, happens, but this attack has made Wikipedia a very negative experience for me. Enjoy your Wiki-obsessed lives and have a nice day. I doubt I will be participating much anymore here because of the elitist, snobbish attitudes presented by censors. Kotterpin 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - I only obsess because I care. If you don't care...well, I can't control that, dude. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Blaxthos. No reliable sources. And I am kinda pissed at you guys for running this person's fan off. I was looking forward to a 300 word rebuttal of my own.  ;) Resolute 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - No reliable sources means no article, no matter how minor the subject. Ignoring (rightfully) the totallty non-indepedent official articles just leaves a single source which in turn is also non-independent. Wikipedia calls for mutiple sources. DarkSaber2k 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• TJ Spyke is a hypocrite. I was sent a link from a Wikipedian who'd rather not expose himself to this petty debate and it lists pages User:TJ Spyke has edited for pro-wrestlers who have absolutely NO cited soures whatsoever.

• Biggspowd is a hypocrite. Same situation as TJ Spyke. He heavily edits unsourced articles.

• EliminatorJR has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• blaxthos has almost no experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Dennisthe2 has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• DarkSaber2k has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Resolute has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Nobody in this discussion except TJ Spyke and Biggspowd (who both edit a heavy amount of unsources articles on a regular basis) have any experience with pro-wrestling articles and if they did they'd know that 95% of all of them have absolutely NO sources whatsoever. The only two who do have experience with wrestling articles ([User:TJ Spyke]] and User:Biggspowd, if you research their edits (I have no time for that, I'm taking my informants word on this), you'd see they actively participates on articles that have absoluetley NO sources whatsoever. None. Why? I am sure there is no response to that question other than a Wiki-cliche link. TJ Spyke had the audacity to edit this DD article and request source citations. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Please take this 300 word rebuttal into consideration when deciding on deleting this pro-wrestling article and Threat (Wrestler) which both actually have sources, the latter, multiple. Save the Wiki-cliche comments because I won't be back for over a week, when I return to see if these two articles have been deleted when 99% of all independent pro-wrestling articles on Wikipedia are not.

Respond with all the Wiki-cliche links you want. They're coming from people who have a track record of editing unsourced articles or people who have no clue that just about every independent pro-wrestler article is unsourced, that is every article except Demonica Deadwater and Threat (Wrestler)

Thank you to the Wikipedian who exposed to me that every person on this list as being unqualified to rate the merits of a pro-wrestling article nominated for deletion. Kotterpin 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin

• It doesn't matter whether the article is about pro-wrestling, atomic physics or the Guatemalan Tree Frog. Unsourced is unsourced and it doesn't need an expert in any field to appreciate that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Kotterpin, please do not make personal attacks against the editors here, such as what you did to TJ Spyke by calling him a hypocrite. Also, please do not be a wikilawyer and pedantically quote policy and guidelines outside of their spirit. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, even the pro-wrestling crowd agree on this one. RFerreira 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Non-notable. And I do have experience with pro wrestling articles. --Unopeneddoor 03:24, 10 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.