Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WrestleCrap (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleCrap

WrestleCrap (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)

This article has been around a long time, and has survived previous deletion debates on the basis of popularity and assertions of notability, but those assertions are not and never have been, backed up by coverage in reliable independent sources. "Well known", "insanely popular" and so on, are not actually valid arguments to keep in the absence of

Most of the article as written, is self-sourced. The only substantive claim to notability appears to be by inheritance from R D Reynolds. I have checked the Google search results for Wrestlecrap and found one or two namechecks in articles about Reynolds, and... nothing else. I cannot find a single non-trivial independent reliable source that is actually about this website, so I think it fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Lots of their publications have lots of coverage in reliable sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
  talk) 16:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nice links. How about some in reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all meet the criteria for reliable sources, and the

Canadian Online Explorer (slam.canoe.com) links are from a mainstream (i.e. not wrestling-specific) source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Noooo, they really don't. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic doesn't effect the fact that these are reliable sources. Especially the PW Insider and PW Torch articles, which are clearly named on RS list for

WP:PW Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That requires references in reliable independent sources. As I pointed out, they are in short supply, with zero currently in the article. Focus on reliable, as in, meeting Wikipedia's standard of reliability. Mainstream newspapers, for example. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in reliable sources, including mainstream sources. Also the focus of two books released by ECW Press. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, and why are they not cited int he article after all this time? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are they not cited int he article after all this time?" You know, I just took a closer look at this article. How is it that you're all over this AFD, hounding everyone for expressing opinions that you evidently don't like, yet you haven't made a single contribution to the article, either positive or negative? In the real world, when someone expects me to do something because they can't be bothered, usually it's because they're my boss and there's a paycheck involved. It's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to have editors who do absolutely nothing whatsoever on here but make hundreds of thousands of meaningless and at times even counterproductive AWB-fueled edits and similar, rationalizing this behavior by saying that they're volunteers and as volunteers they're entitled to do exactly what they feel like and only exactly what they feel like. OTOH, those of us who have been fighting a losing battle in contributing substance to the encyclopedia and are constantly attacked for doing so are being held to a different standard. I get the strong impression from all this hounding that you haven't bothered to read any of the sources presented in this discussion, that you have no intention of doing so, and all that really matters is that someone else go and stick those sources into the article for you so that the article looks pretty enough to you. Go take a look at

WP:PW/RS, because your arguments come across as yet another case of misguided forum-shopping when you're really challenging the project's view of reliable sources instead of just this one piece of content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Passes
  WP:GNG with plethora of reliable sources provided by Treker.LM2000 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per Gary and Treker. Actually, there are three books released by ECW Press: The Death of WCW, The WrestleCrap Book of Lists, and WrestleCrap The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling. There's also apparently a fourth book, published by Blake Publishing called WrestleCrap Stories of the World's Maddest Wrestlers. Nikki♥311 17:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Clearly notible. Really shocked an administrator would ignore
  WP:SNOW should come into play here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per sources provided. AFD is not clean-up and "Noooo, they really don't" is a ridiculous response to being informed citations are appropriate, especially from a self-proclaimed "Grandmaster Editor" who has been an administrator for 12 years. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:27, 31 January 2018 (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.