Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WrestleCrap

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 keep, we're not discussing the merits of speedy keep, we're discussing the merits of the article. -- 9cds^(talk) 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleCrap

nn website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestlecrap. My opinion is that it's wrestlecruft, but probably undeletable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SK, as its previous AfD discussion, during which it was kept with a pretty decisive vote, occurred less than six months ago. -- Kicking222 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition, it's not as if the page has been changed enough that the vote should really be any different than it was before. -- Kicking222 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly notable within the pro wrestling community. Dsreyn 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, already was nominated, decision was reached, it was kept. No reason for it to be deleted then, and no reason for it to be deleted now. DemonWeb 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently associated, however loosely, with some notable people, including some notable enough to have their own articles. --zenohockey 02:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I really don't like the new speedy keep guideline (note: guideline, not policy) and this AFD is a poster child for why it is bad. The purpose of it is to stop articles from being repeatedly brought up for deletion in a "forum shopping" situation or as an annoyance tactic. That, however, is not the case here. We're five months into the six month moratorium and this is obviously a good faith nomination. Anyway, enough of my rant ... as for the article itself ... the website never met WP:WEB, a guideline which has not changed in the last six months. It has an alexa ranking of 180,522. [1] Googling finds only self-generated and blog hits. The article has ZERO sources or links to anywhere other than the website itself, thus failing WP:V. I can find little reason to keep the article. BigDT 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Highly notable among Internet wrestling fans as well as has published work.--IU2002 03:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I fail to see how this qualifies for a speedy keep. I agree with the points brought up by BigDT. It comes off as advertising and saying something is "notable among internet wrestling fans" doesn't make it notable in general. I am a fan of their site, and I do listen to their radio show, but the site has a lack of content (due to bandwith costs), and a low alexa rating. It does come across as cruft, and should be removed. If it is not removed, it should be cleaned up extensively. --Burgwerworldz 09:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, up to an including their widely circulated books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If the books are notable, that doesn't automatically make the website notable. I don't know, though, that it is definitely a given that the books are notable. There is one overriding concern about both - are there ANY independant resources? Media mentions? Book reviews? Anything? BigDT 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, we disagree about the books and website thing, I think they go hand in hand. Regardless, ECW Press isn't some vanity publisher, so that really should be taken into consideration. But since you're asking about sources, keeping in mind that third party wrestling commentary is a bit of a niche, we can start with the Canadian Canoe, and I'll note a number of Wrestlecrap citations and mentions at Google News throughout the wrestling community, on and offline. That may not be enough for some people, but it's more than enough for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The article you linked is a good start ... any non-trivial, non-self-generated third party references are good for showing notability and for having a good article. Right now, there's nothing on there. BigDT 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WrestleCrap is probably the most popular wrestling-comedy url and arguably the most well-written of any wrestling site out there. I would, however, like to see some work done by Wikipedia Crappers (the term for fans of the site) to make this article of a higher quality and do more to express the website's importance/notability. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The site has a fairly low amount of material, and it's simply just a cult website. I think the poor alexa rating really makes this grounds for deletion, and I'm stunned that more don't agree. I am a fan of the site, but you just can't include everything here. --Burgwerworldz 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WrestleCrap is a very popular site among wrestling fans and does deserve its own article because of that.

Brendan 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)BubbaQuinn

• Keep: Why this is even being considered is beyond me.--Desmond Hobson 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is very notable among the pw fan community, with its site maintainers having published a few notable works. Anyone who noms articles like these should be part of the community relevant to the topic so it puts weight into the matter. After all, it could be a person who is indifferent to (or has a considerable distaste of) the topic who is doing the nomination... kelvSYC 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after researching this a fair bit, surprisingly it is notable. Hopefully it will not become a honeypot for vandalism as most other pro-wrestling articles do. Yamaguchi先生 05:29, 30 June 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.