Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling physics


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling physics
Delete. Seems like original research to me - application of cartoon physics (which is at least talked about elsewhere) to professional wrestling. bd2412 T 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like the contents of an email forward or chat room humor. Kafziel 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. These rules should stay unwritten. --Sbluen 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That you don't think that the corpus of human knowledge should include a topic does not make that topic unsuitable for Wikipedia. If we had that as a reason for deletion, which we do not (per our Deletion policy), many articles would end up being deleted, because for many areas of human knowledge there is always someone who wishes to suppress all writing about it. Uncle G 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS, possible WP:OR. -- Kinu t /c  20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not abuse that as some sort of blanket rationale, and a substitute for "I don't like the subject of this article.". That section of What Wikipedia is not has a specific meaning, which doesn't apply to this article at all. Uncle G 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Peephole 01:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the nomination, wrestling physics are also talked about elsewhere, as a little research would have shown. I encourage all of the above editors to do the research rather than to merely look at an article and think that it might be original research without making any attempt whatsoever to check that.  It wasn't hard to find at least two sources discussing wrestling physics (in far more detail than this article does &mdash; indicating that this article can be significantly expanded) and I have no doubt (given that I didn't even get to the end of the first page of Google Web search results) that there are more to be found.  The article needs significant improvement and cited sources.  But deletion is not the way to do that.  Ordinary editing is.  There is the source material available to work from.  Keep Uncle G 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dug into those Google results and found 65 actual pages returned (excluding the Wikipedia article), many of which used the phrase in the context of sentences like "nugget casino University of phoenix Rpg Musician Sony Bahamas Butterfly Wrestling Physics Columbia house Internet casino gambling File replication Power"; "free wife slut story strike committee If teenage girl + lard Those amateur wrestling physics That amateur nude woman ? broad For adult cartoon joke wind" ; and "street map electronic hearimg protection horny house wivs drug infoemation topamax free picture enema professional wrestling physics bikini cameron diaz" . The ONE page that I found that is actually about the kind of wrestling physics discussed in the article is A Primer in Wrestling Physics, which is quite clearly a joke article making assertions to the effect that the wrestler bounced off the ropes is propelled back to the hurler by the combined gravity of their massive bodies, centered in their noses, and that "10 head shots into the turnbuckle achieves a sort of harmonic vibration around the brain causing extreme disorientation". Yeah, it's funny, but that, along with a few blogs or forum posts that refer back to it, is just not a basis for an encyclopedia article. Cheers! bd2412  T 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How did you manage to find only one page when the article itself links to two? &#9786; If it is a concern that the source that you found is written tongue-in-cheek, then the same concern applies to the self-styled Funny Page on the laws of cartoon physics that is linked to from cartoon physics.  Also note that there are other articles about physics and wrestling that aren't turned up just by looking for "wrestling physics".  There are also several not tongue-in-cheek discussions of the laws of physics as they apply to steer wrestling, such as this one.  Uncle G 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to throw my 2 cents in, I looked at those external links earlier and I didn't think either of them could be considered a reliable source. Kafziel 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, another blog. And "steer wrestling physics" has nothing to do with the content of this article. Maybe this stuff could be merged into professional wrestling, but there is no authoritative source supplying a body of these made-up rules. bd2412  T 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nick Mks 14:12, 4 August 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.