Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Kids' Style


 * 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. -- Lear's Fool 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Kids' Style

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable book, which the writer originally paid notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to print, then self-published it when it bombed there. Fails every possible criterion under WP:BK. Also WP:AUTO, WP: COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA violations, relating to the subject's vanity attempts to advertise himself throughout Wikipedia Qworty (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  — Nikki  ♥  311   04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability whatsoever.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Despite the very obvious opinion of Qworty (talk, I am finding this book available at hundreds of libraries all across the country by doing a simple database search in WorldCat which certainly gives it merit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.174.67 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is nothing here to satisfy WP:BK.  Anybody with a pulse can pay AuthorHouse to print a book, then donate the book to libraries, then come to Wikipedia as a WP:SPA to create WP:SPAM articles to promote oneself.  That is not how notability is established.  And then, of course, it's no surprise that the only voice to defend the WP:SPAM should come from an anonymous ISP in the guy's hometown. Qworty (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The search phrase "Pro Wrestling Kids Style" has 273,000 results on google, this author obviously does not need Wikipedia to self promote anything. True anybody can use Authorhouse, but but not everybody can be distributed via Baker and Taylor, one of the largest book distributors.  The question here is does the subject have credible notability and despite the opinions of a few, that answer is undoubtedly yes. The fact that Qworty (talk) continues to show passion for deletion concludes his personal vendetta against the subject matter. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS.  Those arguing keep need to point to the multiple, reliable, nontrivial, independent sources specified by WP:BOOK. EEng (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just took 10 minutes surfing the web and came up with several independent notable sources and reviews.        I could have went on and kept adding more, but I think this is enough to prove the point. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but blogs and message boards do not constitute WP:RS in terms of satisfying WP:BK. Since the book was first vanity published, and then self-published, it is by definition ineligible for review in any of the industry publications that are required by WP:BK.  Furthermore, you do not make a book notable, per WP guidelines, by paying to have it published yourself, getting other people to post about it on blogs and message boards, and then coming to Wikipedia in an attempt to use these bogus credentials to write articles about yourself.  It is a violation of WP policies for you to attempt to do so.  Since WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:SPAM are at work here, you should recuse yourself from further comment, including all attempts to try to build up false notability for yourself. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite correct about the various sources not being RS, but I'm afraid we must continue to assume good faith on the part of this IP, despite well-founded suspicioums based on the geolocation. [bolding later to highlight phrase referenced in my later comment, below]  Anyway, perceived COI may lead to a user being blocked, and to heightened scrutiny of that user's actions, but if that user brings evidence to the notabilty discussion, it is evidence nonetheless. However, in this case, as you've correctly said, the evidence this IP has brought is worthless. EEng (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it is almost entertaining that Qworty (talk) makes the automatic assumption that I am the author in all of this just because I am located in the Midwest. I was merely trying to point out other third party sources I found to show that others did take the time to review and write about this book online.  None of those links were message boards, some were blogs, but most were dedicated websites that do book reviews.  While I feel this subject is worth debating, I also find it very suspiciously interesting in how passionate Qworty (talk) has become in his attempt to remove this article, as if he has a personal vendetta in all of this. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict -- Quorty's and EEng's responses where submitted simultaneously
 * You just don't know when to cut your losses, do you? (As Linciln is said to have put it, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.")  You're not merely, as you say, "located in the Midwest," but specifically  in Schofield, Wisconsin,  which (surprise!) is the location  of Crossen & Flink Services ("publisher" of Crossen's book); the dateline of press releases from NWF Films, distributor of Crossen's film (and itself headed by Crossen); and, according to Crossen's own press release,   home of Mr. Crossen himself.  So forget my admonition to Qworty earlier -- please just cut the crap, Mr. Crossen Mr. or Ms. IP 97.83.174.67, whoever you might be.  Do you think you are dealing with fools?
 * EEng (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. Schofield, Wisconsin has a population of 2,117.  According to the Crossen article, his self-publishing company is located in Schofield, Wisconsin   Hmm, your IP geolocates to . . . Schofield, Wisconsin   Those are some pretty huge coincidences for such a tiny town.  But what is even more laughable is your assertion that Schofield, Wisconsin constitutes the entire Midwest.  But you're right about one thing: I have a "personal vendetta" against WP:SPA accounts whose sole purpose is to create self-promotional WP:SPAM in a series of WP:WG articles that stink of demonstrable WP:COI and WP:AUTO.  I and many others firmly believe that all of the relevant policies should be followed, and that such articles and their self-promoting creators should be scrubbed permanently off the project.  We're just funny that way about policy
 * Qworty (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, is all I can say. You know, as much emphasis as all you so called "editors" put on following the rules of wikipedia as far as making sure that sources are notable and reliable for accuracy purposes, you should really start practicing what you preach when it comes to drawing conclusions to a person's identity on the internet.  Not that I have to disclose this, but for the record, I am a local reporter from Weston, Wisconsin to be exact, not Schofield, Wisconsin.  And a few years back, I ran a feature story on Mr. Crossen where I reviewed both his book and documentary.  I followed his projects over the years watching how they took shape.  Years ago, there was more mainstream media coverage on him, but those online links have since expired.  I never used wikipedia before but thought I would try to make a contribution of what I thought was some very justifiable information.  I've heard of all the horror stories with the controversy of the submission process, but I thought, I'll give it a try anyway.  Never again.  I'm done with this.  Now I see what I was warned about.  And the sad part is, I wasn't submitting this to do a favor to Mr. Crossen for publicity reasons, he doesn't need that, his products are plastered all over the net and can be found immediately with a google search.  I submitted this because I thought it had merit and was useful information for wikipedia purposes.  Like I said, never again.  And if you consider yourself any kind of journalist or "editor", next time don't make the assumption over somebodies identity unless you know for certain you are correct, so unprofessional. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I've bold-ed bits of my earlier comments (above) as a reminder that I clung as long as I could to the assumption of good faith. I did allow myself, not without reason I might add, to finally slip into the assumption that you were Crossen himself, and I do regret that, but only somewhat. And here's why.
 * This incident vividly illustrates how powerful is personal acquaintance as a contaminator of the ability to write neutrally about someone. You have met Crossen and admire him; you feel what he did ought to be memorialized here.  That's natural, and the fact that it's natural is the fundamental reason that Wikipedia asks people with personal involvement with subjects to stay away from articles on that subject or, if they really feel they have something unique to contribute, to proceed with extreme caution, to be thorough in understanding applicable policies and guidelines and, especially, to defer to the views of other editors who are viewing the subject with a fresh eye.
 * You did none of that. Wikipedia guidelines are indeed complex -- for example, many sources usable in general for writing an article are not usable in establishing the notability of an article's subject for deletion purposes.  That's unfortunate because it causes a lot of argument and grief, but there are very good reasons for it, and I certainly think that you, a newspaper reporter, are capable of understanding.  Here's an exchange between you and me (in the related AfD, that on the article on Crossen himself ):
 * 97.83.174.67: ''[T]his is the kind of person I feel should be remembered for what he did... not for his recent endeavors, but for what he did back in time. Honestly, isn't that the purpose for Wikipedia in the first place? For those of you wanting to "Delete", are you basing this on Crossen's actual accomplishments and contributions he made historically? Or is it all about how much you can find 25 years later surfing the web? This is certainly a question worth asking, but please, know his story before answering, otherwise you're just judging a book by its cover.


 * Me: Sorry, but it doesn't matter what he did, only what people (other than he i.e. his own book and movie don't count) said about it 25 years later. If no one's written anything about it, it's not notable for Wikipedia purposes. 
 * That sums up the situation entirely. Yet despite repeated references to policy and guidelines, you continued to press the same inapplicable arguments, and cite the same unusable sources.  That your final, coy statement that you are "in the Midwest" -- as if Weston, where you actually are, isn't just 4 miles from Schofield -- pushed us over the edge to the mistaken belief that you probably are Schofield himself, is unimportant. What is important is that it turns out to be true, as originally thought, that your support for the article was in part personally motivated. You walked like a duck and talked like a duck, so we thought you were probably a duck.
 * Tempers often run high at AfD, and it's unfortunate that this has been your introduction to WP. I urge you to stick around, read up on policies (starting with WP:FIVEPILLARS), and do some editing on articles concerning subjects from which you're more detached.  Perhaps you'll come to see why things are the way they are, and forgive us for any harshness we may have shown you.
 * EEng (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well: Like I said, the problem with Wikipedia as I see it is that there is too much scrutiny. They say that too many cooks spoil the kitchen, and that is kind of the case here.  What I mean by that is everyone strums up their own opinions on the facts, and in some cases, are strayed by their own personal taste despite the facts, and that is where the bigger problem is.  The contributions that Mr. Crossen made to professional wrestling during the time frame he did them are simply a matter of public record, he is, whether you accept it or not, a part of its history.  Some would even argue that Mr. Crossen was tied to the evolution of "Backyard Wrestling".  But in any event, he made contributions that are definitely fabricated into the history of professional wrestling.  And when narrow-minded users such as Qworty (talk) simply claim Crossen is using Wikipedia to promote his material is pretty laughable when you go to google and search the words "kids pro wrestling" and links related to Crossen come up 6 out of the 8 on the first page alone.  Crossen does not need wikipedia to promote this stuff.  And I will conclude that it is a real shame that biased editors such as Qworty (talk) make all the false accusations to try to defend their rediculous point of view when all the evidence for what Crossen accomplished is all in the public record. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Qworty gets a bit excited but he's not wrong. While you turn out (you say, and I believe you) not to be Crossen, there is no doubt that Crossen himself or someone acting directly for him created earlier versions of this article, previously deleted. For example, copyright release for the photo of the teenage Crossen was given to Wikipedia via the confidential OTRS system  -- the only person who could have given such authorization would be Crossen himself, so he has definitely been involved in the development of these articles.  You might find it laughable that someone would see being in Wikipedia as a commercial advantage, but it's absolutely true -- people fight very hard to keep their "vanity" articles from being deleted, people including  who you think would be above such crass ways of attracting clients or increasing prestige, such as doctors and lawyers. It's very much an ego thing, too.
 * You still don't seem to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria. Crossen may very well ahve done all the things you  say.  But they have to be covered in certain types of sources, at a certain level of depth, for WP just isn't interested.  Many things that are "true" will never be in WP because there's no way to verify them and/or they're not notable.   You say what Crossen did is public record, but where?  Someone (IP 96.60... below) points to the Dove Foundation review, but I'm afraid that's no help. Why?  They're not a reliable source.  Why?  Because a RS must, for one thing, be intellectially independent of the subject.  Reading the Dove review, it's obvious that they got their facts just by reading Crossen's book, and did no research or investigation of their own.  Without reliable sources, independe of Crossen and each other, covering him or his book/movie in significant depth, he/his book/his movie is or are not notable for WP purposes.
 * EEng (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Crossen was the man who paid notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to print this book, then tried to use it to come to Wikipedia to write three separate articles about himself that were nothing more than WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. He is a WP:SPA. A short time ago, Shawn Crossen, the article he wrote about himself, was deleted at AfD  Since Shawn Crossen is himself not notable, and since Shawn Crossen was the only person to have defended his vanity-press book in this AfD, it would follow that the vanity-press book is non-notable as well. Of course, we have already demonstrated through WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK that the book is not notable, so even if Crossen had somehow survived his own AfD, his book would still be non-notable. But since the three self-promotional articles are WP:WG and WP:SPAM, I think it's relevant to consensus to note what other editors are doing about them. Qworty (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BK --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Qworty (talk) loves to keep bringing up the fact that Mr. Crossen first published his book through what he labels "vanity press" AuthorHouse, as if there is something wrong with that. What I can tell you from my interview with Mr. Crossen that I conducted, he went to Authorhouse first because they were offered the service to publish his book and like many others, Crossen did not know of any other alternatives. He certainly wasn't the first to go this route, nor will he be the last. Once he realized the details, he was the one who canceled his contract with Autherhouse and went on to self-publish his book instead. Crossen said the decision was based on financial reasons where his self-published hardback book costs for publishing were three times less than what Authorhouse was charging for printing up the paperback. Thing to remember in all of this is Mr. Crossen is not an established author, but he had a story to tell, so he tried to use the best path he could manage to do so. I see nothing wrong with that approach. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Keep?  [<--tag added for clarity by another editor]I would like to comment on Pro Wrestling Kids Style.My qestion is the person disputing the submission claims there is no notable information on line about the book, does this person feel the Dove Foundation is notable. They endorsed the book as well as the documentary along with the Kids First. I would think that both organizations must have standards. I would encourage you to review both organizations and there current standards along with other books and movies they have endorsed. I suppose you think Mr. Crossen paid for that as well. I would encourage all with doubt of the documentary or book to do your own investigating before judging because of one member. The book and documentry should be on this site after all the documentry has won over 15 National and International awards as well as being distributed Internationally. The documentry alone was in the january 2006 issue of Navarre center stage video buying guide, research Navarre and see if they are credible, I also would recomend you rent the documentry on Netflix,I am sure you have heard of Netflix. Now the book was featured in the School Library Journal May 2006 issue on page 73. By the way this is the largest Libary directory in the Nation, I wonder if they are credible.You also can purchase or order the book at most retail stores maybe try Barnes and Noble for starters. Look I could go on and on about why this has merit, but if you qestion then just google and you can see for yourself.  [Preceding comment by 96.60.131.138,  14:52, February 2, 2011]


 * Self (or even vanity) publication isn't itself a bad thing, but the opposite -- being published by a reputable publisher -- is a point towards notability; self- or vanity-published books are books which apparently no reputable publisher wanted its name on, and that suggests the book might not be so good. In particular, reputable publishers pay the author for the privilege of publlishing his book; vanity publishers get paid by authors to publish books no one else want to bother publishing.  Self-publication is essentially the same, except cutting out the middleman publisher -- the authro still pays for his book to see light of day.
 * No one's suggesting that Crossen paid the Dove foundation for their endorsement; the problem there is that being endorsed by Dove isn't the same as being reviewed in the New York Times or Atlantic Monthly. Video buying guides are specifically excluded from contributing to notability because there's nothing to explain how they select certain films to feature.
 * Query Could you please list the 15 awards for the film, with weblinks? The weblinks should explain what the award is, and confirm that the film won it.  I'll transfer that info to the AfD for the film.  (While Crossen and his book are almost certainly not notable, I think the film might be, and this would helpo.)
 * EEng (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Update While I have not spoken to him in years, after all this debate here, I decided to contact Mr. Crossen and explain what I did on wikipedia. I did not want him to find out about all this without knowing how it all happened, I figured I owed him that much.  When he learned that I attempted to contribute articles on his material to wikipedia...he chuckled.  I asked him why?  He told me that years ago when he first released his book and DVD, he made an effort to do the same.  He said "back then I was trying to find every avenue possible in hopes that other kids would learn my story, and wikipedia seemed like the perfect place to do so."  He went on to explain how the articles were deleted.  I told him that others have defended him as well as myself, but there are a small number of other editors that feel his sources just aren't notable enough. At this point, he really laughed.  He said he appreciates the efforts, but he really could careless what a handful of "wiki" editors thinks about him or his products compared to the thousands of emails he has received over the years from kids all around the world that have been inspired and motivated by his story.  He summed it up by saying... "most all of those wiki listings are just more or less a "vanity recognition" thing, but the emails I received from all these kids are absolutely priceless.  If I could choose between the two, I would take the later."  Wow, what a class act.  I am half tempted to do another feature on him as a followup. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My grampa had a kind heart, said wise things, and was kind to animals. But he still wasn't notable. by WP standards.
 * You seem to be the only person here who didn't know that Crossen had tried to use WP to promote his book/movie before. WP is not a web host offereing to be "the perfect place "spread the word" even about commendable projects, so it was deleted.  That's a big reason we thought that you were him again.
 * Strange that Crossen thinks most WP articles "are vanity things" -- I guess that's why he thought it was OK for him to add one of his own.  [ Clarification: I am referring to earlier, deleted versions of these articles (i.e. the articles we're discussing are recreations of those already deleted once).  There's no doubt that those earlier articles were personally created by Crossen. ]
 * EEng (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Call me a cynic, but are we really supposed to believe that these are quotes from a phone call with Shawn and not, say, Shawn just posting what he thinks under the guise of a weirdly admiring journalist...?-- K orr u ski Talk 12:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I will call you a cynic, but Korruski, you are located in London. How do we know that you are not Luke Thomas, an editor and coulimst known for hating Professional Wrestling.  Now am I being cynic?  And While EENG's grandfather was a nice man and loved animals, I am also a nice man who loves animals.  But EENG's grandfather did not do what Crossen did in history, and neither did I.  That's the difference. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't, and if I happened to create a series of articles which he had previously tried to create, displayed a clear bias in support of him, and then started posting his statements in the form of 'quotes' based on a private conversation, then you might be inclined to be suspicious.-- K orr u ski Talk 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who EENG is but feel they have breached the community trust by directly commenting on Mr. Crossen and his character. If EENG is involved with Wikpedia then I would encourage him or her to follow the guidlines and hear say is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk)
 * Unflattering comments are a wellknown risk of using Wikipedia for self-promotions. See WP:AUTOBIO.  Hearsay is one word, and this is not court. EEng (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The following text is moved from the top, where it had been placed out of order with other comments, and in such a way as to break the header.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To whom it may concern or "Quary" A request was made about web sites and awards of the NWF kids Pro Wrestling "The Untold Story" The following is what you have requested.

I am in hopes this will shed some light on both the book and documentry and why it should be part of Wikipedia. It is in my opinion that the information submitted clearly demonstrates verifiable and reliable resources.I also would encourage you to do a Bio page on both the founders and creaters "Chuck Luxury Lane and Shawn Crusher Crossen"of this unique league back in the 80's. A league that to this day has never been duplicated. A league that was produced by kids that reached a national audience with sold out arenas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) AEGIS Video and Film Production Awards, 2006 Finalist under documentry. www.aegisawards.com/winners_list.html.
 * 2) The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival "2005 Best sports Documentry" The film screening took place at the Village East Cinima New York City. Ironically The New York International Independent Film and video Festival is on the Wikipedia site. You can also google www.nyfilmvideo.com.
 * 3) The New york International Independent film and video festival Los Angeles 2006 the documentry won the Screen Craft award. www.nyfilmvideo.com.
 * 4) Accolade Compatition "2006 Honorable mention award". www.accoladecompetition.org
 * 5) The Videographer awards "2006 award of distinction" www.videoawards.com
 * 6) DV Awards "2006 Finalist". www.dvawards.com
 * 7) Telly Awards The 27th annual "2006 Silver Winner Sports Documentry award". www.tellyawards.com
 * 8) Cannes Film Festival May 17-26/2006. notable the largest film festival in the world. ITN Distribution represented the documentry at the Cannes.ITN Distribution is located at 505 E. Windmill Ln Suite 1b-102 Las Vegas, NV. www.itndistribution.com
 * 9) IFQ Independent Film Qourterly "Cannes Special Edition Issue #11 may 2006 on page #48 features the Untold Story. www.itndistribution.com
 * 10) Navarre Center Stage January/Febuary 2006 edition Pg.7 featured the Untold Story. www.navarre.com
 * 11) State Of Minnesota Governor Tim Plenty recognized both the book and documentry and excepted it on behalf of the State January 17th, 2006.
 * The Book "Pro Wrestling Kids Style" was reviewed by Donna Rolfe on 1/1/2009 from the Dove Foundation it recieved 3 out of 5 doves. The dove foundation has endorsed the book and the book recieved Dove family Approved recognition seal. www.dove.org
 * The book "Pro wrestling kids Style recieved a 5 out of 5 stars Review from Amazon.com search www.amazon.com/pro-wrestling-kids-sty...
 * PWinsider reviewed NWF book 2/4/2005. PWInsider.com
 * School Library Journal book review may, 2006 pg.73.www.slj.com

I've looked through these awards have have come the the following conclusions:
 * 1) The AEGIS Video and Film Production Awards do not represent a significant reward.  I can't find significant coverage about the award in reliable sources.  In fact, the entire award appears to be geared towards manufacturing awards to slap on press releases complete with an area for press release generation.
 * 2) The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival is a bit lax in its submission criteria and is not a notable festival.
 * 3) See above
 * 4) The Accolade competition does not represent a significant award.  I can't find significant coverage about the award in reliable sources.  As with AEGIS, this award looks to be designed to allow people to pad out the awards list in a press release.
 * 5) The videoawards.com site spends all of its time extolling the virtues of displaying a fancy clapboard award.  Again, another non-notable award designed for apdding out press releases and resumes.
 * 6) DV Awards.  I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again.  Another pad the press release award.
 * 7) The Telly Awards has no fixed number of winners, and not surprisingly has lots of winners.  Not an indication of notability.
 * 8) Having a distributor for a film does not indicate notability.  Nor does the fact that the distributor went to Cannes to try and sell it.  If the film were exhibited at the festival itself, then we can have a discussion.  And of course, it isn't an award.
 * 9) Not an award although coverage in press can contribute notability
 * 10) Not an award and not a reliable source
 * 11) Not really an ward and not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it's abundantly clear from everything that's been posted over the past ten days that everybody is in favor of this thing being deleted, except for Shawn Crossen himself.  His assertion is ridiculous--that he's just a journalist interviewing Crossen.  No journalist in the world would bother with a has-been wrestling coach from the 80s, posting endless WP promo articles about him, and then becoming the only person to defend those articles at AfD.  That is not the way journalists operate.  And then, even after his own Shawn Crossen article has been deleted, Crossen continues to defend his remaining self-promotional articles.  It's obvious that the only person who cares about constructing false notability for Shawn Crossen is Shawn Crossen himself.  Perhaps he thinks he can stir up some Internet attention for his failed coaching career, his failed book, and his failed video by posting endlessly about himself in these AfD pages, but he is sadly mistaken if he thinks that will work.  The only thing he has accomplished, through his solitary, self-adulating voice, is to needlessly draw out an AfD that should have been closed long ago.  He needs to abide by WP:DEADHORSE.  I think it's time for this charade to end, and for an admin to close this debate and delete this and the one remaining Crossen article per WP:SNOW.  And then salt the red remnants, and block Crossen's IPs for all time. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I only have a minute here, will comment more later, but I'm compelled to take time to say this at least. Qworty, you are out of bounds now.  I like your enthusiasm but you sometimes go overboard, and this is one time.  (If that's a bit unsubtle please blame it on my hurry just now.)  There is no reason to believe that Mr. 96.60.131.138 isn't who he says he is i.e. a local reporter.  I've been exasperated at times by his seeming refusal to get the point, and I did make the mistake of letting myself conclude he was Crossen (which I've retracted and apologized for), but there's no call for what you say above.  It's speculative and attacking.  How can you be sure it's Crossen and not, say, an admiring neighbor (or admiring local reporter, for that matter)?  How would we be able to tell the difference via his written words where?  Short of a direct admission, we can't.  And it doesn't matter anyway.  He's someone who firmly believes that the article doesn't qualify for deletion. He has his reasons which we may or may not think are very good.  We need to deal with him on that basis, and forget about who he might be in real life. I only ran into you a few days ago so you don't know me well, but please try to think of this as well-meant criticism from a caring friend. You really should apologize.  I mean it. EEng (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. If he's not Crossen, then I certainly do apologize to anyone it might be.  He claims to be a journalist, yet there is no way that a journalist would make all of the grammatical and spelling errors that this contributor makes.  So I think it's safe to say that whoever he is, his claim to be a journalist is false.  However, if in fact he somehow is a journalist who cannot write grammatically, then I do apologize to him, and he has my sympathies. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Look guys, I enjoyed the debates here, and these past few days have really been more about the principle of it for me more so then my admiration of Mr. Crossen.  But I think it's fair to say that we can agree to disagree, and that is really what it is.  I enjoyed the conversation for the most part, less the mud slinging from Qworty.  But I think there is really not much more to say.  Having spoke with Mr. Crossen the other day, he really doesn't care about wikipedia, so I don't see the point anymore other then his story having a lot of historical value.  But then you have Qworty making comments of how Crossen was a "failed wrestling coach" and that just shows ignorance in the highest degree as Crossen never failed as a wrestling coach, because he was never a wrestling coach to begin with.  So if he cannot even get his story right, then how can you measure anything else he says with any kind of accuracy? And one last thing, thank you EEng for your last comment, that was very respectable for what you did. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. So you expect people to believe that you're a journalist when you've just posted "Having spoke with Mr. Crossen"?  You've made dozens of the crudest grammatical errors throughout these discussions, and yet you continue to claim that you are a professional journalist.  Also, if Crossen "really doesn't care about Wikipedia," then how do you explain this?  And this?  So were you using Crossen's name when you started posting here four years ago "as a journalist"?  Or was that Crossen "himself"?  Either way, you've already admitted that your only purpose here is to promote Crossen, which is a direct violation of our WP:SPAM policy.  And yes, vanity-press "publication" IS a matter to consider under WP:BK.  You act like WP policies are things that others are just making up, instead of actual policies that you are violating.  The larger problem with vanity-press "publications," of course, is that they are a fraud upon the reading public, because nowhere on the cover or on the spine or inside the book does it state that the only reason the book exists is because the author paid to have it printed.  You claim to be a journalist who is very interested in promoting a vanity-press book, but if you actually believe that there are any real journalists out there in the world who care anything about promoting vanity-press books, then you haven't looked too closely at the proffered sources in the very article you're defending--not one single article by a professional journalist!--which means not even one by YOU.  Are we to believe that a professional journalist who is interested in promoting this book would promote it only on Wikipedia, and nowhere else in the world?  None of this adds up, and I don't buy any of it.  Qworty (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Qworty, you know I'm no COI or SPA, and I'm telling you you're way out of line. Even if your speculations are true, they don't help anything.  Stop these rants.  They serve no purpose. EEng (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is less than 100 words long. Because of the activities of one IP, the debate is thousands of words long.  NONE of this has served any purpose.  The article should have been deleted days ago instead of relisted for further comment.  I think an admin should speedy close this with a deletion per WP:SNOW.  I'd like to know what you think. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all the evidence there's ever going to be re deletion is already here somewhere, and we should all just shut up and allow an admin to come along and close in due course. Mr. IP, I apologize again for Qworty -- his heart's in the right place but he gets too excited.' EEng (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Qworty, you know the funny thing about you is that you make a lot of assumptions. Perhaps you are just gullible that way, I'm really not sure. But let us look at the facts... I never said I was a "newspaper reporter" or a "journalist", you did.  That's right, you.  I said I was a local reporter and that is true, but you were the one that made the assumption that it was in journalism.  The fact of the matter is that I work in television production and produce features within our local community.  While I apologize for my grammar, my segments are quite different, and I like to think I do a pretty darn good job.  So again, you have made an assumption without knowing the facts.  Do you see how dangerous and misleading this can be? Our maybe, " how misconstruing" would be a better way to phrase it with you.  And as for the "vanity-author" label you put on Mr. Crossen, the fact that he spent the first 6 months doing that, and the past 7 years "self-publishing", I think it be more appropriate that you just label him for what he is, and that is a "self-published" author.  Qworty says "The larger problem with vanity-press "publications," of course, is that they are a fraud upon the reading public, because nowhere on the cover or on the spine or inside the book does it state that the only reason the book exists is because the author paid to have it printed."  - So are you saying that the works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin are a fraud upon the general public?  Because they too, were "self-publishers".  I have pretty much lost all credibility in Qworty.  He is the kind of person that reads the first sentence of a paragraph and seems to know the rest without reading. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that the self-published "works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin are a fraud upon the general public." I am saying that to equate the self-published work of Shawn Crossen to the works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin is a fraud upon the general public. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You said that it is a "fraud to the reading public" when the author pays to have their work printed. But now, you are being selective in that very same statement.  Where it is a fraud for Mr. Crossen, but not a problem for Twain, Franklin and the rest?  Interesting.  I knew you were naive and ignorant to some of the facts, but I never thought you would be discriminating as well?  This is the kind of thing I would expect to hear coming from some dictator in a third world country.
 * LOL. You know full well that Twain, Franklin and Crane never paid for publication through a vanity press.  And you also know that none of them was ever a mid-level manager at a grocery store. Qworty (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LMAO.  No, like Crossen, they all used self-publishing, and that is the bottom line.  For someone who believes so strongly in excluding the use of sources that are not notable, you sure seem to have a funny habit of using such sources when it's convenient for yourself.  Hypocritical are we? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This one is for Korruski... Since you are in London, perhaps you could verify a full page review of both the book and DVD in Fighting Spirit Magazine in the 06/07/2006 issue on Page 74.  With those arguing that there is no notability in all the reviews, then one must wonder how come there is such a vast worldwide reach of reviews out there on the products in question. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to send away to London for it? You say you're a local TV reporter (even though there are no TV stations in your town) and you say you live just a few minutes from the guy.  Why don't you just ask him for a copy of the magazine the next time he's bagging your groceries? Qworty (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL You think he bags groceries? As a Grocery Operations Category Manager for Roundys, Mr. Crossen travels between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois.  Once again, you have proven time and time again to just make assumptions.  I guess the four television stations we have here in this area just magically exist.  As inaccurate as you are with all of this, I wonder just how accurate your subbmissions are here on wikipedia? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since Qworty has demonstrated on this and other related discussions, it is apparent he is in violations of WP:NICE, WP:PA and WP:HA. Since he is so big on following the rules of wikipedia, perhaps he should start with these three just to name a few.  If he acts like this all the time, perhaps a WP:CDB is in order. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * '''Cool it!" Qworty, and 97.83.174.67.  This is a discussion on whether "Pro Wrestling Kids' Style" should be kept.  Anything else is irrelevant.  Let's stay on topic.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment has been moved from the top of the page where someone has placed it out of order and in such a way that it breaks the header.-- K orr u ski Talk 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) KEEP... It is my opinion that this "Qworty" has a personal issue with Crossen, I mean he even knows where he works or maybe that is made up as well.I am in hopes that "Qworty" is not a person wikipedia relies on for decision's. I do feel as though the book has merit and deserves it's place here, as well as the documentry. I mean I researched the documentry on IMDB the internet movie database. www.imdb.com and there is review's on there.The documentry is also listed as a rental with Netflix. The book can be ordered or purchased at most retail stores this can be veryfied by calling a book store and ordering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk • contribs) — 96.60.131.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of that satisfies anything in WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (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.