Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MadMax/2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep all. Legitimate use of userspace. Xoloz 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MadMax/2

Current version of this editor's userpage has links to articles he has userfied to circumvent deletion by AfD - Chip Fairway, Bubba Fangman and Charlie Cook. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominated the following pages.

User:MadMax/3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User:MadMax/Charlie Cook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep not terribly nn articles, have potential of recreation, so don't be so eager to delete them yet. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First, as I believe the articles I created are notable, I also believe I have the right to keep them so as to provide relable sources which satisfies WP:BIO and WP:A (in fact, if I were to ask the administrator who deleted them, he himself could consider to restore them to a user sub page on my request). While Hackney himself nominated these for afd, as well as proposing the deletion of numerous others (which in this case I voluntarily moved them to my user page instead of contesting them), I do respect his opinion dispite his view that the majority of professional promotions and wrestlers are non notable. Other users also keep articles which they feel were inncorectly deleted on their user pages for the same purpose, I myself recently recreated Maryland Championship Wrestling which was previously deleted due to an expired prod tag (WP:PW and other editors being unaware of this). All of the individuals I have created do meet the following:

• The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • The individuals in question had won championship titles in their respective wrestling promotions. Several were mentioned in the PWI 500, a listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers as published by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. While it has been objected to as a reference as an independent and relable source, it is a recognized award (among PWI's other "Wrestler of the Year" awards) and is included as such on other professional wrestling related articles (this includes GA-rated articles). Similarly, others have been the subject of the PWI Years, an all time ranking of the top professional wrestlers.
• The person has demonstrable wide name recognition.
  • Again, Pro Wrestling Illustrated is arguably one of the major professional wrestling publications in North America and is "officialy" the one publication which is regarded on what is considered a "world title". While the majority of wrestling websites and ""fan sites" may be unreliable, several of the wrestlers are mentioned which does demonstrate a significant following. They have also competed extensivly in notable independent promotions as well as international organizations.
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • All of the articles I've created are of individuals who have competed significantly in one or more notable promotions and were either involved in notable events such as PPV shows, tournaments or otherwise notable event in their career. In particular, those who have won championship titles are the subject of at least one published book Gary Will's "Wrestling Title Histories" (and its subsequect editions). This point especially is important regarding the professional wrestlers of regional promotions prior to the 1980s.

I believe Hackney's concern is based upon a recent discussion regarding an edit to NWA: Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling. I have been maintaining WP:PW's "to do" list for the past several months, especially in regards to articles proposed or nominated for deletion (which has become a recent problem keeping up with the amount of articles being nominated), and I had been cleaning up some of the afd/prod nominations. One of those, ECCW Pacific Cup (Tag), had been proposed for deletion (rather than nominated for afd) and as it had originally been part of NWA: Extreme Canadian Championship wrestling I moved it back to its parent article. As a similarly named ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament had been nominated for deletion, I believe Hackney may have mistakly assumed it was this article which I had merged and had questined weither I had purposly moved the article to avoid the afd discussion. While its understanable that might come to this conclusion, after I had pointed ot that I had made no edits to that specific article (as seen in the edit history) he asked that I reference the readded material. The parent article had previoulsly been proposed by Hackney and since removed by another user and Hackney apparently may have assumed I had been involved. As I mentioned in the discussion, I have never contributed to either article and did not contest its proposal in either instance.

I find it unfortunate that Hackney chose to nominate these articles instead of contacting me through my user page. Had he asked, I would have been willing to work on them by hand (I mainly use public computers and would be unable to save these articles). If you will note, I have significantly improved other formerly deleted articles on my talk page such as Marybeth Grant however I am invoved in numerous projects on Wikipedia as well as real life resonsibilities and admittedly I have only a limited amount of time to spend on this specific project (for example, I have been working on a missing topics list for the Harper's Encyclopedia of Military Biographies for over two years). I have the utmost respect for Hackney (his contributions to Irish Rebublicanism obviously speaks for itself), and I have never had any personal disagreement with him, however with sufficient time I believe I can prove the notability of these articles. MadMax 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• keep per explanation of page owner: users are allowed to use userspace as a scratchpad for improvement of articles, and in fact having them on-pedia is probably better than in a .txt file somewhere on their hard drive. It's probably the most directly encyclopedia-related use of userspace there is. Wintermut3 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think MadMax is making a genuine effort to work on the articles--and the articles themselves seem capable of being improved to WP standards.DGG 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For crying out loud Hackney, can you be any more of an egg? Theophilus75 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:USERFY. I find it good in times like this to assume good faith of the editor, in this case, MadMax.--WaltCip 15:25, 15 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.