Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s wrestling boom


 * 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The result of the nomination was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Yank sox  04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1980s wrestling boom
Appears to be original research/essay, is repeated off of other articles, or could be spilt into them. Burgwerworldz 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC) I would like to withdraw this article for consideration --Burgwerworldz 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Professional wrestling or move to history of professional wrestling. Either way, expand greatly.  The history of the pro wrestling doesn't seem to be covered at the moment in any comprehensive way, at least not in an obvious namespace. Ace of Sevens 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was created as part of an ongoing project by the WikiProject Professional wrestling, which will also see an article relating to the 1990s wrestling boom created. The article needs expansion, but an article focusing on a period of growth confined to a single decade and a single country is too obscure to be merged with the main professional wrestling article. McPhail 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above user created the article, so that vote should be discounted or "cheapened". Burgwerworldz 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I created it in reponse to a request made by the other members of the WikiProject. Deletion policy does not endorse your view that my vote should be discounted. McPhail 00:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable and verifiable enough for mine. General comment: Articles for deletion is not a strict vote. Rather the closing admin should look at the strength of the cases put in terms of policy and claims of notability, verifiability and guidelines. As such, the arguments of the articles creator are valuable and shouldn't be discounted. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't buy the claim of original research - the article has two references already, and at a quick glance, I don't see anything that couldn't be documented from other sources. Dsreyn 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons McPhail stated. It's part of an ongoing project and is still being expanded. TJ Spyke 02:56, 8 July 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.