Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent (3rd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 No consensus. — xaosflux  Talk  00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is clearly original research with no place on Wikipedia. This has been in TJ's user space long enough, and he has made little attempt to make it into an article. He asked for help at the wrestling project (only after this was nominated for a second time) from what I can see. The one source on the page isn't very relevant: it's just lists of results with no percents listed whatsoever. Also, Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service. RobJ1981 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't think he means to be an article, but a resource for including those stats in other articles. Which naturally be sourced then.--Victor falk 11:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to use it as a web host. Also, I know that other articles aren't relevant to this (since i've spent a great deal of time telling others this at WP:AFD), but what about all the people who have subpages devoted to their barnstars or to tell people about themselves? At least this subpage is informative and useful. There is also nothing at WP:SUBPAGE that says this isn't allowed. TJ Spyke 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the user in question like to explain the rationale behind this page, without raising WP:WAX arguments? It seems to me like an inapropriate use of userspace, but I would like to know why he wants it kept before I make an "official" opinion.  --UsaSatsui 23:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any accurate rational for deletion in the nomination. This page is meant to be an article someday, so TJ is not using Wikipedia as a web host, and there isn't a policy stating that he has to make it into an article in a timely manner. Rather than delete a user's pages because we don't think they are moving fast enough, we should be encouraging users to create articles in their subspace if they know it will take some time to make it into an acceptable article. Now that this has been brought to the attention of WP:PW, the subpage should expand, but even if it doesn't it should be kept because it does not meet any criteria for deletion.  The  Hyb  rid  23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's still original research. I just did various searches on google and it doesn't find any reliable matches. One fan site, Wikipedia itself and numerous things not even related. Until sources are found (which I doubt they will be), this shouldn't be a subpage as a "possible" article for the future.RobJ1981 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Original research isn't a criterion for the deletion of user subpages, and the fact that its intention is to be an article someday is a ground to keep it.  The Hybrid   T / C   03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason to keep Subpages are meant for testing articles that could be placed on Wikipedia, and I think this was TJ Spyke's intent. What I think happened is that the subject is not going to be made into an article without reliable sources. Entering what TJ Spyke has on that subpage into an article would be nothing but original research, as these are facts that he put together. Keeping this is mind, while I think his intention was good, it's not going to be placed in an article any time soon. What I would also like to say is that, while it serves little to no purpose keeping it, it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion, hence my !vote as 'no reason to keep'. — M o e   ε  18:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. If he has no plans to make it into an article, it shouldn't be here. If he has plans to make it into an article: it's original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. RobJ1981 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Broken record - Original research is not a criterion for deletion of user subpages, and he has stated previously that he intends to make it into an article someday, but he intends to source it first. You have absolutely no ground to stand on in saying this page should be deleted.  The Hybrid   T / C   13:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not be original research. I strongly doubt that nobody has ever calculated pro wrestler statistics before.--Victor falk 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Victor, you just contradicited yourself. Original research is making up statistics or whatnot without any sources. You just said that no one probably calculated the stats before.. thus that would mean there is no source. Thats what original research is all about. Theres no denying that if this went into an article that it would have to be removed as would have no verifibility and it's something calculated by him (i.e. original research). — M o e   ε  18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that he get it published in a scientific journal before it can then be used here? What exactly qualifies as a verifiable source? I may be a bit cynical, but I do not see my local NBC affiliate running a story on WWE PPV Win Percentages any time soon. The only chance of anyone running an article on it would be a wrestling news site if he were to send it in to them, but even then I know people would start saying that these wrestling sites are not credible sources. F-402 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Moe, he said he _doubts_ that nobody ever calculated it before. Meaning he suspects others have. —Random832 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do some searches: there is NO SOURCES. Is he going to magically pull them out of a hat? Or just wait until a reliable source has them? We can crystal ball all we want, and it probably wont change things. Someday he "could" make it into an article. Someday sources "could" be found. He created it on November 4 of last year: and since then, a poor source has been added and he asked for help one total time with it. Seeing as how he has had it as a subpage for a while: and done nothing to source it correctly, is a good indication there is little importance of making it into an article. Subpages shouldn't be abused as a "possible article storage area". He's had the time to make it into an article, but hasn't. RobJ1981 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment. He can post links to every single PPV result page on a wrestling website, if you'd like. But that would just be tedious. This whole original research thing is being abused and misused. Real original research is me saying something unverifiable like, "Most people who drive a Prius tend to notice a smell emanating from the dashboard after reaching speeds of 70mph." What he is doing can be verified. If you are that certain that he is crumming up the verifiable facts, then you are free to go PPV by PPV and verify them. F-402 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I don't think it matters what a person has on their user subpage. Then again it's been awhile since I looked at WP:USERPAGE.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 13:32, 10 October 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.