Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWA Pyromania

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PWA Pyromania

None notable e-fed show (where people write roleplays and pretend to be wrestlers), thus vanity. Delete' Englishrose 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - blimey. Not only does it really not need the rosters to be included (generates bloat), e-feds are dime-a-dozen, and I can't see it meeting verifiability or WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to rebut this...

How is this not "verifiable"? Yes, you're right, e-feds are a dime a dozen, but not e-feds such as the PWA. It's massive, with a total roster of over 60 people, it's read by thousands of people a day. It's on the forums for the number one wrestling news site on the internet. This isn't some piddly little organization put on by a group of 13 year olds.

It's an entire community of people. If you don't believe me, read it for yourself. www.lopforums.com

I don't see what is so wrong about sharing all of this information with the general public.

This is indeed the place for rebuttals. If you can include the sources required under the verifiability policy that I linked to above (and that is in the statement right below the edit box), as well as show us how the site fits under the Website guidelines, then I'm sure other editors will give it thought. My view is that e-feds, like 99 percent of fan produced works, roleplay groups and similar fan-created products, are not encyclopedic, and that's why my vote above. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:22, 21 August 2006 (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.