Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TPWW

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 (working around those asked to come here to 'vote'). Ian¹³/t 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TPWW

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Doesn't look notable to me, especially given the inactive periods mentioned in the article. I could use some more opinions, though. --Spring Rubber 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all about the forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destor (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2006

I don't think it needs to be deleted. James

  • Weak delete - the number of users may make it notable (not sure if there's a threshhold number), but it just doesn't feel notable. BigHaz 08:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's one of the most long-standing and popular wrestling sites on the Internet. and was even in a book. --MikeMetaled 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


  • My name is JT, a poster at the site and I was the one who started the article. There is much more about the site then what was mentioned, but I have left it to other members of the site (as well as visitors) to add their own input to the article. The site has been around for a total of 8 years, and does have a following notable enough among wrestling fans and smarks to be on Wikipedia. I actually started this article after looking up TPWW on Wikipedia and decided to start my own when I couldn't find one. Also, there is much more about TPWW then what I mentioned (popular articles, other trademarks), but have left it open to more knowledgable people to add to the article...and it will take more than one day (which is less then the amount of time given to the article before the deletion notice) to build it up. jayteecool 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also to note the inactive period of time...the site was never inactive. I mentioned the slowdown of the site to note the impact of the forums community which became even more popular during this period and lead to the revival of the news & column section, as well as other areas of the site. Also during the time, the forums led to some of the most popular staples of the site which were created on the forums. jayteecool 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite a big forum; it has about 400 active users. PTWC 7:02 5 August 2006
  • Also, it was listed on DirectTV's top 100 websites in 2000.
  • Very popular and noteworthy site. Keep it.
  • Weak Keep The notable posters part needs to go, however. Danny Lilithborne 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Definite keep.

An excellent web site, I made changes to a few things on the page as per suggestions made, and cleaned up the grammar and spelling errors. It is definitely an entry worthy of keeping around as TPWW is certainly one of the most popular wrestling websites on the internet today. -Shaved Munkey

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 153,185 [1]; has not been mention in any majoy media sources (no evidence of being mentioned by DirectTV); and 39 Google results [2].--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the evidence of the DirectTV mention. [3] --MikeMetaled 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per above, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Definitely non-notable 203.45.253.41 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I have to say this so often that I should write an essay about it. Forums have a very high standard for notability on Wikipedia. They must not only be popular, but have a reason for notability outside of the fact that they are a popular forum. My classic example is that of EVE Online, which has a forum with over a hundred thousand active members, over 370,000 threads, an Alexa rank of 5000, and millions of posts, yet it doesn't even get a mention anywhere in Wikipedia, even in the EVE Online article. Why? Its just not notable. There's no reason someone outside of the EVE Online community would have heard of it. Thus, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an unencyclopedic article (bordering on advertisement) for a seemingly non-notable site (which, as User:PTWC stated above, only has 400 active members). Its Alexa rank is an unencouraging 153,185. -- Kicking222 11:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per active member count, Alexa rank, no references, etc etc etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Delete fails WP:OR, WP:Websites with Alexa rankings below 100 000 really need some sort of importance to get articles , what have you. WilyD 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't seem to be notable - but that's coming from my perspective. I'm sure the only people who would ordinarily come in contact with this article would feel differently. Small, but mostly harmless articles should be kept.  Cdcon  17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I realise WP:SPAM is only a guideline, not a policy, but it really makes a lot of sense. WilyD 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The real question is whether or not its a vanity page. That's the only spam criterion it might trigger. I see the article as a good-faith, not-vanity attempt, but I can understand if you feel differently.  Cdcon  19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An article can be both made in good faith and spam, it merely requires the creator not to realise that Wikipedia is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia, rather than free web hosting for their non-encyclopaedic content. WilyD 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above well-stated arguments. Wickethewok 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, article fails to establish independent relaible sources giving the site non-trivial coverage.-- danntm T C 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I also ask why people are so convinced this is an advertisement when the site has been around and established for 8 years, with several new members every day. It clearly doesn't need to be advertised, we just want a notable website acknowledged. MikeMetaled 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's a notable website, than surely you can ferry it past WP:WEB and shepard it past WP:V - until then, I'll have to argue for deletion as WP:DUCK tells me it fails WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM, but most importantly WP:V WilyD 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A site that has no signs of slowing down. The forums are huge and so is the actual website. The article is pretty much harmless.
  • Bullshit that this got erased. There is some crap on Wikipedia and this couldn't crack it?
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.