Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowrestling.com Forums


 * 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. - Bobet 10:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prowrestling.com
Article is unreferenced, not verifiable, and forum is not notable. Thanks/wangi 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC) COMMENT!This is what I have to say. If people can have personal pages, then why can't an entity that represents 6000 users? Personally I think that the editors here don't want to put it on because they themselves don't like wrestling. I don't like anime, so could we then say to delete all the anime pages? I mean I've seen stupid-ass shit all over wikipedia, so if this page is maintained in a serious manner, then whats the issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssp1 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: Ssp1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Delete. per nom -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Article has since been moved to Prowrestling.com. —Whomp 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: and a bunch of content removed... Such that to be honest it could now probably be deleted as WP:CSD / WP:CSD! Thanks/wangi 22:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, very little content and still no claim to notability...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. It's about a website, not a forum -- User:gereikat(talk) 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has no edits and is repeatedly vandalizing this page ST47 Talk 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has very little content because it just started. Give it a day or two and it will have plenty of content — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEreikat (talk • contribs) 2006-10-07T22:37:39
 * And the WP:WEB notability criteria guidelines? And WP:V? Thanks/wangi
 * Also, vandalizing my user page because I voted to delete doesn't exactly endear people to your cause. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A long way away from WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sure it will not amaze many, but i've had to delete GEreikat due to his blanking of this page and personal attacks on those leaving an opinion on this page. Thanks/L//wangi 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Nacon kantari  00:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Naconkantari and idiotic antics of creator. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont delete Ebay gets to stay as its the most popular auction site so why not the biggest prowrestling site, 6000 members of the forum alone and hundreds of thousands more visit the site monthly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brezzy (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Above new user has only edited this page. And sorry, but 6000 members is pretty hilarious. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment over 6000 in the forum, hundreds of thousands visit the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brezzy (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Shoryuken.com has 43,000+ members and was deleted. Sorry, but your claims of notability are a joke. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because its not notable to you does not mean its not notable to others who watch wrestling, the domain name alone is worth $1 million its hands down the most visited site of its type on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brezzy (talk • contribs)
 * CommentFor a wrestling forum (A 'sport' that is not as popular, as it used to be) it's pretty damn popular in comparison to most others. Not many sites come close to PW in terms of traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * CommentPW is probably one of the top 5 pro-wrestling (LOL!) boards out there just behind Smart Marks and Rajah...
 * Commentboth of them have a point... [User:Superdizzle]
 * Delete This article is not about the prowrestling.com site, it's about the FORUM. IGN gets an article here but any time someone creates a page about one of it's forums it ends up getting deleted. TJ Spyke 02:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Who says it isn't about the site? It's about both. Look at the DVDVR page, that has two sections - site and forum.
 * Comment The page will be mostly about prowrestling.com site, we are just reluctant to do it right now in case it gets deleted, let it stay and I guarentee you a well written page
 * My vote stands, the page doesn't assert how it is notable or how it passes WP:WEB. I am a regular visitor to the site, but I don't think it needs a page here. TJ Spyke 02:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "If we have that crap article, why not this crap article" is not a valid argument. Danny Lilithborne 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Because it just doesn't work that way. There are tens of thousands of websites that have several thousand regular users. If we listed all of them and all the "garage bands" that record a CD and sell it on their own website and a few other such things, WP will be totally useless. To be included in WP a website has to have some special "claim to fame", such as being the first at something. (For instance, Altavista.com was the first Internet search engine.) RickReinckens 08:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. RickReinckens 08:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Dekimasu 09:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many things being overlooked about this article, that seem to be overlooked due to the bias nature of the those who oppose it, and the lack of knowledge on the details by the people who posted this.  This has been up for less than 24 hours and already it looks like it will be deleted solely because some feel it is not notable.  However the site in question exceeds the popularity of notible entries on this site, which serve as a brief bio and advertisement plug for paid services set up by wrestling journalists.  Now this arguement is abvout notablity from everything I read and that is the issue stopping the people who should be updating things here from doing so.  First off, Prowrestling.com as seen by it's name was one of the first wrestling websites, dating back to 1997 or even earlier.  A rapid change in ownership and issues with the early site gives little info on the pre 97 state of the site.  Now the reasons this site is important enough and deserves to stay here as an asset to many of the wrestling pages listed here.  First off, we have an active columnist community both on the main page and the forums.  These people provide up to date indepth commentary, as well as orignal research such as the quarter hour draw power of stars.  Second, we are slowly becoming on the best places for independant wrestling federations to gain exposure.  The main site on PW.com gets about 250k unique hits a day at last count, so that means a regional wrestling federation can expose themselves to a variety of people, with minimal effort on their part.  Also in this area, we are bringing in interviews with wrestlers in a unique and detailed manner in the forums.  Much of the content we seek to share with the people here, and moreso the wrestling network here, would be these features, and help link up people and regional feds through our page to help them self-promote, and help would be columnists find a place to expand there work.  Since we do not charge for these services or limit who can do them, along with provide a possible change to get their work or promo stuff seen by 100k or more people, I feel this offers a source of infomation that will be very helpful to people have do not know were else to turn for these services, much as pages about programs help people who do not know where to term for file sharing infomation.  Well that is my arguement for this.  Not sure if it will matter or not in the end, since alot of the complaints come from one or two people and the rest are just delete comments claiming the site is not notable, although through the very own notable section on this site, it will show the problems of claiming if this site is notable or not in the wrestling community, which would be the group who would edit and update the information here.  Also sorry about the wall of text.  One of the reasons I never edit pages although this account is older is because I never know the exact format stuff should be in so I do not wish to ruin a page through faulty formatting. Engel 10:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coldwavekid (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Delete nn webforum. Eusebeus 11:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep To elaborate on what Engel has to say, I believe this is worth a shot most definitely.  This is not near as bad as some stuff.  I mean come on.  Personal pages?  How is a website around since 1997, that has gained 6000 members in 4 months and that is the 4th most popular search result on Google when 'wrestling' is entered (the first sole Internet company) less worthy than 'personal pages'? We are pointing out the facts.  Why ignore them? ThePWGod 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: ThePWGod (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Delete spam for non-notable forum. Leuko 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm guessing Leuko didnt read the excellent points posted above his 5 word response, if your going to delete us please make a conscious effort to debate the figures and claims of notability that have been presented so well Brezzy 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Brezzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment You know if the true way of finding justice here is by considering valuable, objective, factual responses more useful than tons of 'non notable'/'spam'/'not valid' crap, then we wouldn't even be arguing this right now. Like I said.  Go to Google.  Type in wrestling.  See the fourth result.  It's pretty simple.  Lithborne is the only guy making an argument and even he is losing all credibility by ignoring the FACTS.  You want a discussion on this then you got it.  But right now we're the only ones not taking it as a vote.  ThePWGod 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentWhile I forgot to mention it above, since for many notability needs a unique or big fact, the domain name for the is the single most hit one in the wrestling world, even higher than WWE on most search engines when people look for pro wrestling. As for it being adverting spam, the precedent was already set for these pages to be allowed to exist when the PW Torch page was allowed.  That page is not notable as it was not the first, not the most read, nor is the wiki link anything more than an ad for the website and paper sheets that Keller sells.  I know we do not yet have alot of content, but within hours of trying to set this up, we got the call for it to be deleted which as I mentioned above encourages people not to spent a few hours to get a detailed list of the site and it's history up, only to have it deleted anyway.  Also not to mention during those first few hours the page was heavily sabotaged repeatedly.  While the first people to edit this up were misguided, more people have shown interest in this that know how wiki does work and we are slowly adding to it, but cautiously, as why would anyone waste time editing an article that a non-democratic site may delete based on a democratic opinion? Engel 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not about the content of the article, it's about the website/forum not being notable enough to have an article. The article does does not assert the notability of the site, see Notability (web) for how you can address that. Additionally how can the content of the article be verified without any reliable sources? This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Thanks/wangi 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The forum information was non notable and thus I removed it.  The content of the article can be verified by going to the home page.  The new covered and information on the page can be verified by following the required source citations provided for all news coverage, in the forums or on the main page.  Using Google's back links currently 800 back links to the site and forum.  This is on par with the 1000 found backlined to the Wade Keller PW Torch page which we used as out president in creating this site.  Using www.linkpopularity.com we have over 2000 redirects back to our site that is active now.  Neither of the site have won an award, and while Keller claims national exposure, it is only in the products or services he personally sells, which only reaches a small group.  Much of the current content will be seeing reprint on other wrestling websites, mostly the interviews and the quarter hour power ratings.  I do not personally know at this time were they are reprinted, as I do not personally deal with the power ratings, nor is the girl who promotes the interviews online at this time.  We have notable people providing information to the site, namely Dory Funk Jr and Dave Prazak who do work on the main page and forums respectively, along with Vincent Clark providing information from time to time.  Since there is little precedent information I could find via wiki pages on what makes a wrestling site notable and what does not as it is randomish it appears what can and cannot be allowed here, a list of what exactly you are looking for given the sub genre of websites would be needed, so we know what exactly to provide you with.  It is confusing when some articles are deemed notable when they are in regards to professional wrestling in general, which they are listed under, while this one is considered not.  Also the guideline is very vague and hard to apply to this sort of site, as there is no community to give wrestling site awards, and we assumed the site would be notable due it to being the most desired name for all wrestling websites as well being hte first site that returned when typing pro wrestling into most search engines.
 * Comment: The original AfD was for the forums, which are not at all notable. However, the page has been moved and substantially rewritten since this AfD was started to cover the entire site -- not just the forums.  I'm not sure the entire site is any more notable than its forums (Alexa rank in the 14,000 range is borderline-ish), but it is something to consider to prevent an apples-to-oranges debate. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Laying the smack down. Anomo 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Any decision yet? or has everyone ran and hid now that some decent points have been made, if your not intelligent enough to go against Engel thats ok guys we wont hold it against you.Brezzy 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Under normal conditions, AFDs last for 5 days. In this case, until Thursday, 12 Oct.   Please stay civil in your comments.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep al those debating over notability and sources try http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=prowrestling.com Theendprt 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's one of the top prowrestling websites in the WORLD. There is absolutely no reason it can't have an article. ChopAtwa 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR (the article has zero reliable independent sources), which are required for any claim of notability per WP:WEB. Sandstein 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 08:40, 13 October 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.