Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Impact Wrestling

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 of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Impact Wrestling, Matt Essex, Chi (e-fed wrestler)

None notable e-wrestling federation, therefore a federation that doesn’t exist and is none notable. It has two extra pages of fantasy wrestlers that belong to this federation. Englishrose 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My mind boggles. The concept of e-wrestling is weird enough by itself, but how can one be a professional e-wrestler? Henning Makholm 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really see what all the fuss is. "E-fedding",to me, is a hobby as interesting to some as MMORPGs are to others. I can understand that there was a wrestling federation with those initials but as far I can see, there is none. The federation itself seems quite unique on further inspection. Don't delete as this is just pure victimisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. User's first edit. Englishrose 23:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Call me biased, but why is an e-federation which claims to be nothing more than an e-federation being accused of anything? It's fiction, correct - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, is it really so different to this? And in response to the question of how one can be a, "professional e-wrestler;" the answer is simple. A fictional charcter who's profession is wrestling. What's not real about that? Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The main reason isn't that it is fiction, the main reason is that it isn't notable, thus doesn't meet WP:N nor is it verifiable as there are no third party sources and thus it doesn't meet WP:V. Despite what you think, your e-fed is different to you example of Lord of the Rings as Lord of the Rings is a very popular and notable set of movies. Englishrose 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
      • When one first chooses to consider that which is notable, one should invariably take account of the facts and figures. www.hiwsuperstars.com is a veritable hive of activity. At this precise moment, there are 22 (13 members and 9 guests) people viewing the forums on which the fiction is written. Notably, 9 guests. Third parties. The naming of something as objectively notable poses a difficult question, but perhaps I can argue a favourable answer in Matt Essex's case. Quantitively, The Archives (which contain most things over six months old) are 30gb's in total. This I think you will agree is a notable collection of work.

There are 11,593 threads viewable on the forums. Once again, I think it would be folly to denote such a figure as not being notable. There are 499 registered members to the forums. This does not include traffic to and from the website by non-members. There are non-members who in fact come to the forums on a weekly basis to read the wrestling shows put up by those who write them, so much so in fact that for a number of months HIW incorporated a ratings system into its News sub forum to keep track of how popular it in fact was.

Before this was removed, HIW scored a 7.1 rating on its last Pay Per View Event (Fictional, of course, and thus free to view). By the forum moderators calculations for rating events, the total score is found by taking the number of hits during the day of posting (bear in mind the shows are available, and actively viewed, for a number of days thereafter) and dividing it by 1000. That means 7,100 views of a single show in a single day. That again would have to be, by a person of sound mind, considered a notable achievement. This should also assuage your concern of there being no third-party sources. Those who are in no way actively involved in the production or competition aspects of the product presented view the product presented regardless.

HIW's name and purpose furthermore do not coincide with any other entries, or indeed possible entries, as High Impact Wrestling is an original and innovative RPG e-community of which there have been several notable spin-offs (including OTB -http://otb.booyah.net/efed- and XW2 -www.wrestlingdistrict.com/forums) over the five years it has been action. Chronologically, one would have to suggest five years of operation is a notable length of time for a non-profit organisation dedicated to encouraging the literary creativity of the wrestling fan.

To use the ongoing example of Lord Of The Rings, I believe the point Matt was trying to make is not that HIW is as popular per se as Lord Of The Rings, but rather that it is chiefly literary fantasy, enjoyed by all who read it. I might remind Englishrose that The Lord Of The Rings is not a popular series of films, rather a popular series of books, of which the films were spin-offs. Again, a philosophical point can be taken from this- one authors work is considered notable, while the work of hundreds of authors is not, viewed by literally thousands, is not. Notability I assume is not relative. Ergo, it is considered presently to equalise the balance. The number of viewings experienced by the average author for a single piece of work might be 26, bear in mind these pieces are approximately 1/200th of the length of one Lord Of The Rings book. Multiply 26 by 200 and one gets 5,200. Proportionately then, while not as popular by any means, one would still reach the conclusion that it is indeed notable.

Verily I am perplexed by the fervour with which the opposition petitions for this pages deletion. After all, philosophically at least, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the people, by the people. How would anyone hope to overcome ignorance of anything if the repositories of knowledge did not contain information that which one seeks. Gravity was once but an apple in Isaac Newton’s eye. Evolution, in Darwin’s. If he had been opposed to vigorously by those who disdain that which is unfamiliar to the point of requesting its removal from tomes of knowledge, scientific advancements would have been terribly stunted. Meanwhile, the creativity, innovation, advancement and achievement of generations both young and old as channelled through a specific medium (wrestling) is being shunned as being unworthy of representation herein. It seems in conclusion that the deletion of this page would move against the fundamental precepts upon which the site is based, merely because of a subjective sense of practicality.

Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

          • Typing in "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as the first and second search results on Google. Typing simply e-fed it is the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" (it is important for the protesting author to realise that HIW is infact an acronym) it is half way down page two. On Alexa: "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as its first result. Simply "e-fed" the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" it is two thirds of the way down the second page. "HIWsuperstars" finds HIW the first result on both engines. Ergo, your search was the problem. It is important for the protesting author to note the needs of the community that use and view the product. There are literally thousands of e-feds on the net, and thus anyone using Google or Alexa would not search for the letters "HIW" they would search for "e-fed" and whereupon they searched for "e-fed" they would undoubtedly find HIW among the first results.
          • Furthermore I would like to add the following:

"This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)," Ergo, your point is contentious, as is your issue.

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.

"The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.

Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I am bemused as to why this article has been chosen for deletion. It simply appears as if someone is maliciously and selfishly attempting to remove something that they have no feeling for. Others who look at this page will undoubtedly feel the same way as the main protagonist's arguments are extremely weak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete: This is ridiculous and as a former player of PBeM and PBM wrestling games this is just blatant self promotion. An e-Fed caters to a very specific cross section of people and is not notable by any means. Glad you spent a goo ddeal of tie on character history, but I'm not putting my Role Playing accolades into wikipedia. --NegroSuave 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, call me biased, but to be fair being a "former player" of anything doesn't justify what's essentially just an assumption. Regardless of what's apparently so "blatant;" the first of the three pages in question to be created was actually Matt Essex. Thus I feel inclined to ask how it is exactly that one promotes, not an efed, but an efed character? Hopefully your answer clarifies my point, because, you see, the idea, in essence, is to document the character's history and thus give a real-life example of an actual efedding character as well as how that character and any other efedding character's career can indeed develop. As for the page for HIW itself, as far as I'm aware, the same thing applies. It provides the example, documents the history, etc etc. Topping that, considering the uniqueness of the fed in itself, I'd say it's somewhat worthy of being classed as "of note." Nevertheless, anything anywhere can be regarded as not being "of note." I could easily say that as an example, The Lord Of The Rings doesn't quite appeal to everyone, because in all honesty, it doesn't. Sadly, in the case of the support, it's quite unfortunate that apparently as long as the deletion of a page is the initial outlook, no amount of convincing and/or opinion will suffice. Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is self promotion because it is patently forgettable knowledge. Like most roleplaying genre's it is not really important to have an example of the game. Regardless of how popular a Dungeons and Dragons game gets, we do not need an article detailing a character and the time period. As popular as a Minds Eye Theatre game could be Wikipedia doesnt need a detailed article about the setting and the characters. It is simply not necessary. I would yield what unwritten guidelines have been established about other roleplaying games, It is not about any specific game it is all about the genre and maybe you can put your name on a list. Otherwise this is merely complete juvenile arrogance.
    • And as for how it is self promotion. Basically this is the same thing as a "vanity pressing" of a book. While the book was indeed published and the like, its sole purpose is mental masturbation for the author. This is basically the same thing, Mental masturbation. Keep this out of Wikipedia and on a bio webpage where it belongs. If you want this to stand up to the test I am going to start requesting respectable secondary sources to back up all of these claims. NegroSuave 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One would hasten of course to argue that masturbation, as a form of pleasurable physical exercise, and in this case of the mental variety, is the singular function of wikipedia. To exercise ones mind by broadening ones basis of knowledge through research. Ergo, such a phrase does not accurately describe the actions of the pages author as either reprehisible or reprimandable. As for a reputable secondary source, I had no clue Matt Essex had a page on wikipedia and was in no way involved in its construction, yet I have visited it and learned many useful things on it which I have gone on to use in writings of my own. This page has been a useful resource to all who have viewed it, and an encyclopaedia should want nothing more than that. Rob.
    • The High Impact Wrestling e-federation does not have 5000 active members, this is true. It may not even have 5000 active viewers. These may be the guidelines, but is it too much to ask for the powers that be here to look at the world of e-fedding in context? It has been pointed out, I believe, on the e-fed page on Wikipedia itself also, that an e-fed typically lasts around a few months before disappearing into the void. As an e-fedder on and off for something like five years I think it is fair to say that the reason this is the case is that a lot of e-feds are poorly designed, poorly staffed and hardly dedicated institutions. I think that is also fair to argue that High Impact Wrestling is the opposite to these things as it maintains a stunningly professional etiquette resulting in, for a literate wrestling fan, outstandingly constructed shows.

The reason HIW deserves a Wikipedia page is because in a declining world of e-fedding it is, you must agree, a beacon. While it does not have 5000 members like a guideline might wish it did, it is a place that is worthy of note for the maybe hundreds of english-speaking e-fedders that exist and sift through the poor quality piles of feds. It is almost undeniably the only e-fed that can state it has been operating for five years and will not close down; that is has and is breeding writers through fair competition rarely seen in the e-fed world. In its context, High Impact Wrestling is the most notable of its breed.

I quote a colleague when I say if "E-wrestling itself deserves to have a Wikipedia page ... so does perhaps the most popular and detailed example of that hobby." Are the guidelines so tight to deny this logic?

Brendizzle 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have speedied High Impact Wrestling as its only content was a template tag (CSD:A3). Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the other two. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Regards content, more was intended to be added, but the editing process was halted by the pages proposal for the deletion. Only with this resolved can those involved with High Impact Wrestling elabourate as they had planned to do on the subject.
  • Delete as per nomination. As an e-feder myself, I don't agree with adding e-wrestling articles (apart from e-wrestling itself) in what should be an encylopedia. It only leads to arguements over notability and self-promotion. --Oakster (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As an e-fedder, I should hope that you would be sympathetic to such a cause of this. After all, I presume that before you stated your objection you first viewed the forums, whereupon you as an e-fedder would certainly have had to realise that the overwhelming number of arguments already made in this particular cases defense are justification enough for the site to be granted representation herein. If the nomination to delete the pages is made purely on the basis of it causing "arguments" I would remind the protesting author that the discourses undertaken here are strictly discussions. I would further seek to remind the author that without such discussions, no protest could be made for those which rightfully deserve to be here. The absolutionist approach your nomination implies is most worrisome for a peer-edited encyclopaedia. Using the grounds of silencing those whose vase is legitimate for the sake of ease seems counterintuitive to the aims of the site.

Rob

  • Delete. Irrelevant, poorly-written, ego-stroking nonsense. McPhail 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • irrelevant? to what? to whom? you? isn't that subjectivity? and isn't the point of making wikipedia a user-maintained community to facilitate many perspectives on things? (this being a perfect example) and as for poorly-written, you should really read the material in question before making sweeping statements like that. I assure you that in HIW, some of the writers are quite exceptional in character-driven dialogue. you may disagree, you don't like it, fine, we all understand that. however there are plenty of people who do. does it harm you (or in fact, any single person in the whole universe) to allow these pages to exist? if the answer is yes I question your mental stability, if the answer is no then what the bloody hell are we arguing about? this whole campaign for deletion just strikes me as utterly arbitrary, as many often say "we weren't hurting anyone" metaphysical 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I take offense to poorly written. One would do well to actually read the arguments heretofore stated before questioning the quality of the writing with which the objectors state their side. Furthermore, it has not at any point been stated that the quality of writing on any page included on wikipedia must meet a certain 'verbose' criterion, though I am fairly sure that the current author could easily make such a bar. If I may draw your attention a fact earlier raised though not in the same context, it perplexes the current author how precisely one would go about stroking the ego of a fictional character. Equally, if only to match the pedantry of your objection, the page and its contents all make perfect sense. Any failure to percieve such sense would be surely the fault only of the protesting author. A quandry to state then that what is poorly written is beyond the protesting authors comprehension? Perhaps one should be more reserved with ones sweeping statements when first you decide to make them against a respectable and legitimate use of this page.

Rob

Personally, as an e-fedder, I feel this has a right to be here. And why? This is an encyclopedia, and this simply gives a clear view of what the word "conflict" is due to the commotion. It is a valuable information source. Also, to understand that Matt Essex is not real, people must have been reading to the bottom. This shows it has been made in a clear interesting manner and is a valuable information source to show the talents of e-fedders in a unique interesting way.

Ryan


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.