Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brimstone (wrestler) (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. KTC (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)

AfDs for this article:
Brimstone (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has achieved nothing of note as a professional wrestler. The article generally fails

WP:GNG as there is no evidence that the subject has been the recipient of substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Given the sockpuppet investigation into the article's major contributors and that, as LM2000 pointed out, googling "Brimstone wrestler wikipedia" brings up websites making fun of us for allowing such blatant self-promotion, it is surely time to exorcise this wikidemon. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not a fan of articles facing multiple AfDs but this is certainly an exceptional case. This article was created by a user who was, at one point, blocked for promoting Brimstone.[1] Not long after that, at least two recently confirmed sockpuppets were created. For years they lovingly maintained the article. At one point the article was filled up with so much puffery, according to the
    fresh start
    with brand new history. As Suriel brilliantly words it, this has become a "wikidemon" that wrestlingmark3:16 and the like flock to for a laugh.
But I would go further and delete it for good. When you remove all of the puff, this subject fails
WP:ENT. The patron saints of the article, who are now banned for sockpuppetry, would have included more reliable coverage in the article if it had existed.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - there are notable independent wrestlers (who wrestle on the independent circuit and there are non-notable independent wrestlers. As a user with interest and knowledge of professional wrestling, it is puzzling how I have never heard of this wrestler before. Look on the web and you'll see other people with an interest in professional wrestling who have never heard of this guy.
  • 1) calls an older version of the page as "The Funniest Entry on Wikipedia" What happens when someone with a huge ego, but no notability proceeds to write their own Wikipedia article? Let’s just throw into the blender that this person is also a pro-wrestler and a huge mark for themselves... considering this is someone who competed in my backyard when I was younger, I’ve never even heard of him before. In fairness most people have probably never heard of him though, considering he has never wrestled for any of the major wrestling feds or even the major indy feds (ROH, Chikara, PWG… to name a few)... If your wondering why there’s so many gems, it’s because this reads more like someone writing their life story on Livejournal, not an encyclopedia entry.
  • 2) At some online forums you have users saying There's an awful lot of information on there for such a small name and It makes him seem as big a wrestling star with cross-over appeal like Hogan or Rock or Cena. To a non-wrestling fan reading it, it makes him seem as big a wrestling star as Tom Hanks is to movies or Elvis was to music or Ted Williams was to baseball... It does read as if it's a personal memoir written written like the Rock talks.
  • 3) and other forums: like indy guys nobody heard or cares about but somehow, has the most detail about them, this one is Brimstone where it goes on huge amount to talk about Brimstone's entire career... something tells me that Brimstone wrote this one himself
Even now that the article has been vastly trimmed down, three of the sources are primary sources, reference 3 (about CMPW), reference 9 from CAJOHNS, reference 14 from Brimstone's website, and three no, four (missed the bumblefoot one) of the sources in the article are interviews with Brimstone, something I consider to be nearer to a primary source because where's the fact checking? Brimstone could have made the things up - (this is not currently in the article) but in reference 1 (the warned interview) he claims to have founded the New York Wrestling Connection which had its first wrestling event in 1998, which from three online sources never held an event until 2003 here, also here and here!
Now usually pro wrestler articles will have lots of Wiki-links, because by their nature the articles will link to other notable pro wrestlers or other notable wrestling companies or notable wrestling championships. A random example I thought of -
WP:NOTINHERIT
for his trainers. Also, quite a few claims in this already short article fails to cite a source.
tl;dr - if everything Brimstone associates with, no matter in pro wrestling (fellow wrestlers, companies, championships), comics, sauces and his wife is not notable, how notable do you think he himself is? Starship.paint (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - far weaker than I thought before analyzing, but still delete. Brimstone the wrestler is utterly non-notable. The previous AfD, before someone brings up the fact that it was kept unanimously, had four sockpuppet keep votes (User:Fall Of Darkness and User:RingWars2007 were just busted for sockpuppetry, two other users turned out to be socks of banned user Justa Punk.) Brimstone had never wrestled in a notable promotion, held a notable title, or done anything otherwise notable. The long string of sources that persuaded some of the prior keep votes were often shoehorned or partially falsified (for example, the sources used to cite that "Brimstone has been linked to Dawn Marie's Wrestler Rescue" actually only said he would be at an autograph signing with a couple dozen other wrestlers)
    However, there may be a case of notability for William Kucmierowski as a comic book writer, due to the businessinfoguide interview being a fairly strong source. Even so I'm going weak delete because of that policy that says people only notable for one thing usually aren't notable (my acronym-fu is failing me I can't think of the policy name). 96.244.132.35 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC) full disclosure since policy-knowledgable IPs are suspect - I'm a former longterm-inactive wikipedia user who's been messing about a bit lately but doesn't remember his old password or feel like registering a new name[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous votes.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, as detailed above. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can I check that any redirects to the article will be deleted as well? Starship.paint (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I've proposed a deletion of the Wikiquote page as well here, please head over there to vote. Starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think we should propose for deletion Brimstone's photos. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
alright, KILL STEEN KILL. Next station, Commons *beep* Starship.paint (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are no real policy-based grounds for deleting this article, which is properly sourced. That sockpuppets were involved in its creation says nothing whatsoever about the notability of the subject, and is merely being touted as a prejudicial device. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind sharing which of the sources you consider to be acceptable per
WP:GNG? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the nine participants in this discussion who posted before you, only two directly mentioned the sockpuppets in their posts. Yours truly was one of them, 96.244.132.35 was the other, both mentions of the sockpuppets were to explain how this article survived two previous AfDs, which is rather essential in a case like this... Nobody is arguing that this article should be deleted because of sockpuppetry. This is a lengthy discussion so I can't blame you if you didn't read all of it, but the notability issue has been addressed by almost everyone.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as impressive as "NBC News" sounds. That's a single
significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The way the sources are placed in the article are just as disingenuous as any other content placed in the article and victim to the same puffery issues. If an argument is made that the sources are adequate, although others in this thread make a strong case to the contrary, the article will need to be deleted to start from scratch (
WP:TNT). Even after the earlier enemas, we're still digging up new issues.LM2000 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I did mention in my original vote for deletion above about the questionable sources (primary / interview) and that in interviews, Brimstone has made dubious claims that affect reliability and believability. Well, looks like I have to go through this again, this time one by one. Starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 1: Warned interviews Brimstone. Essentially, this is a primary source as we are all hearing the information from Brimstone's mouth. There's no fact-checking at all. In fact, Brimstone does make some dubious claims - "The show was ... manned by Lord Clarence MacDougal, Hostile, Mayhem, and myself. We needed a name, and Hostile came up with N.Y.W.C., or New York Wrestling Connection ... The NYWC was born… The first event held in August of 1998". Essentially in this interview conducted in 2007, Brimstone claims credit for founding New York Wrestling Connection and played a part in its first event in 1998. Meanwhile, I have three online sources that claim that NYWC never held an event until 2003 1, 2 and 3. Also, here is NYWC's website. I searched it for "Brimstone" and "1998", nothing came up. Likewise, I invite you to search on NYWC's forums, there's zero mention of Brimstone, a few of 1998 but nothing related to NYWC having an event in that year or Brimstone. Makes you wonder, that if he makes a dubious claim in this interview, what other claims in that interview are dubious? What other claims in other interviews are dubious. It means I can hardly consider any interview of Brimstone reliable. Interviews with Brimstone are cited six times in that article. Imagine if we removed all of those.
  • References 2 and 4, are newspaper references. Unfortunately, we are unable to read the newspaper articles (could someone link to them?) so how are these verifiable? And these are newspapers so significant to the degree that they do not have pages on Wikipedia.
  • Reference 3 is obviously a primary source, about CMPW, by CMPW.
  • Reference 5 and 6 are about Wrestler's Rescue, a one-day event. "A day meet-n-greet event and an evening dinner event with auctions, entertainment and more." I'm not sure how this counts as two sources of significant coverage for Brimstone. He doesn't take up more than fifteen words across both sources. One source focused on Dawn Marie, the other on Bumblefoot. Brimstone is mentioned as 'slated to appear' at the event along with forty other people, because for both the references were conducted before the event, we don't even know if he even turned up for the event.
  • Reference 7, 9 and 11 are all interviews with Brimstone. Please refer to reference 1 about verifiability and dubious claims.
  • Reference 8 is a primary source (CaJohns), Brimstone releases some sauces with CaJohns, and CaJohns reports that.
  • Reference 10 is a secondary source for Brimstone getting married. Well good for him, but is he notable for that?
  • Reference 12 is from Online World of Wrestling, which the WP:PW style guide does not consider a reliable source, but under 'Other websites (not yet proven)' to be Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking. If you look at Brimstone's page, it states him winning a bunch of titles, on unknown dates and defeating ????? wrestlers. Seems fishy to me. Oh look, it says he won the NYWC Tag Titles thrice. That's weird, then shouldn't be recognized as a champion?
  • Reference 13 is a primary source from Brimstone's own website.
  • Reference 14 shows Brimstone winning a championship. Huzzah. A championship so minor, out of the eleven other wrestlers who won it, only two have Wikipedia pages.
One additional thing that hasn't been brought up yet - what's missing from the article? A
PWI 500 mention, from a magazine WP:PW considers established. This site keeps track of how wrestlers are ranked in top 500 in the world based on their accomplishments in that year. Never in his career, not one year, has Brimstone appeared in a PWI 500 list. Never. This is a guy who's hopped across jobs while never being successful at anything much. Wrestling, comics, sauces. To quote BoosterBronze from Brimstone's talk page... "you can stack cow-patties a mile high and they still never become a pot of gold." Starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Damn. Even JB Jammer, Battle Monkey and Phil Latio made the bottom 100. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see the current sourcing as anywhere near strong enough I don't think we need academic journal coverage to have articles for wrestlers.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which Starship mentioned, would be a reasonable substitute for wrestling related articles. Nothing like that ever covered Brimestone though so it's irrelevant either way.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brimstone_(wrestler)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1140116498"