Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet wrestling community (third nomination)

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 piledrive. Krimpet (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet wrestling community

Internet wrestling community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced for over half a year, fails notability, and is a combination of WP:OR and self-referential pats on the back SirFozzie 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per what the nom said. tomasz. 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is complete WP:OR and has multiple other problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs) at 22:08, May 29, 2007
• Delete, Per Theophilus75. Complete original research. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While the Internet did certainly have an effect on pro wrestling and there's the possibility that an encyclopedic article could be written about it, this article isn't it and is also full of WP:OR. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but original research with a low probability of verifiable sources. Nikki311 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above reasons. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge to List of professional wrestling slang. It was my first attempt at an article in wikiland so I'll try one last fleeting attempt to keep it but do understand the arguments for delete. I'll start with OR since that's the major case. On WP:NOR it gives 7 themes of OR so I'll take them one by one.
  • 1. It introduces a theory or method of solution: Article does not introduce any theory or try to solve something.
  • 2. It introduces original ideas: No ideas being proposed by article.
  • 3. It defines new terms: The only example is the mention of "armchair booking" which probably should be removed.
  • 4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms: Does not redefine any terms used in article to something else.
  • 5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position: Article does not introduce any new argument.
  • 6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source: This is probably where the case of where OR applies to this article. OR generally means one person's opinion of something. People who follow wrestling on the internet would generally agree with what the article states. If there was disagreement the article may be subjected to edit wars.
  • 7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source: You could argue that "Internet wrestling community" is a neologism but the term has been used for quite a while as the label of a collective group.

That leads to if the term is notable or not. I contend it is a notable term among internet wrestling fans and the term is commonly used. One argument by the nom considers this a "self-referential pat on the back." Since I don't consider myself a member of this group I don't know how that can be the case. However, it may refer to not having sources outside it's genre. Well, the scientific community has many articles that do not get coverage outside of the science realm like Terraforming of Venus for instance. Well, there's my case. If still recommended for delete, I vouch for Merge. MrMurph101 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not trying to be mean or nasty here, but the article should be deleted. Even if you merge the article, that doesn't fix the problem of referencing. The article can't be referenced (with the exception of self-referential sources)...it just transfers the problem to a new article. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, though. Nikki311 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not saying move all the content over there, just to redirect it. If the consensus is delete, which looks like the case. IWC is already in the list there, unless that article should be afd's also. Btw, no worries. :) I know all you guys are applying good faith. MrMurph101 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete When you decide what is suitable material for an encyclopaedia you must consider all the terms of what encyclopaedia is all about. It asks you for solid evidence of the subject in question. Now when it comes down to it, Internet wrestling community is just a generic term. It isn't an organisation, I would also go as far as saying it isn't even a club. It's just a name given to the group that discuss wrestling on the internet. The article starts to describe what the IWC is with no citation and when you consider that citation is how we give evidence it becomes clear that there is no clear evidence other than this article. You go on to explain the evolution of IWC in fact the only impact I see is how you explained how news letters became wrestling online websites which provided the information. Those websites are more valid as the sources for the information than this IWC. I am sorry to say, I find this article extremely weak with no real back up citation (evidence) That's why I feel it should be deleted. Govvy 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete - Not really that notable, the Original Research issues all over it put the final nail in the coffin. -凶 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per MrMurph and Eliminator comments. No improvement on article since last afd so redirect it and maybe start over some day. Arthur Fonzarelli 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Completely OR with horrible "sources" and not notable at all --Maestro25 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't think the IWC has any notability and is only a slang term anyway. The likes of Meltzer, Scherer and Keller are professional journalists and the remainder of the IWC is a motley bunch of fansite and discussion forum contributors, many of whom possess extremely inflated opinions of their own self worth (see notorious Wikipedia vandal and sock-puppeteer JB196 for a prime example). So the subject isn't worthy of an article and the article in existance is primarily WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:54, 2 June 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.