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 due to lack of multiple independent sources meeting WP:WEB's "primary subject" test. The only such source identified here, or in the first AFD, is the FAQ on FAQs.org. (And that itself is subject to debate; see Guy's opinion below.) I'm fairly generous in my interpretation of "multiple", but one is not multiple. GRBerry 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling[edit]

CLOSING IN PROGRESS. If you wish to add new opinions, please do so, I will check. GRBerry 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This is a procedural relist of an article whose second afd was closed as it had been created by a banned user (criterion 'G5' of our criteria for speedy deletion). A decent proportion of the 'delete' opinions wern't by socks of the banned user and so I think it's worth a relist.

As there are so many views etc on there, I've temporarily restored the deleted AFD at User:Robdurbar/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (second nomination). That should allow users to refer to arguments or views expressed there. I'll delete that once this AFD is over.

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling.

Robdurbar 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion has been semi-protected since 09:20 11 January 2007 due to repeated disruption of User:Chadbryant and his sock puppets. Any unregistered or new users who wish to contribute may add their opinion to the discussion's talk page; if a legitimate contribution to the debate, it can be added here by a registered user. --Robdurbar 13:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons stated in the most recent AfD. I'm assuming that I can vote now. -- The Hybrid 22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Per nom (of the speedy deleted AFD) and other points made in that AFD. Nom of that AFD was basically "fails WP:WEB (plus rhetorical flourishes). GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same reasons that I gave in the first discussion, q.v., keep. Uncle G 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This was that there was a FAQ on FAQs.org. This definitely is a source meeting WP:WEB. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's no more notable than any other Usenet group. It is mentioned in sources, but there is no description which confers upon it some level of being encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mentioned in multiple sources. DXRAW 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WEB calls for "been the subject of", which is more than just "mentioned in". GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep 39,900 Ghits for "rec.sport.pro-wrestling". Not sure if the sources fit quite right. They seem to mention RSPW in an offhand manner. However, I think it just gets over the WP:N bar. SirFozzie 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have access to the book to gauge the accuracy of the citation, but the 2nd citation, where the book cites RSPW as a gauge for fan opinion is what pushed this to a weak keep instead of weak Delete SirFozzie 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - High-traffic Usenet groups are indeed generally notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see this in WP:WEB. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing in-depth written by anyone not associated with the group. Usenet groups are almost never notable, this one is no different. If someone wearing a shirt that says you suck is your big moment then it's time to take a step back and try thinking about it from a larger perspective. Recury 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A strong argument in the first sentence. The t-shirt bit became clear eventually, but isn't really important. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is not notable. It fails to meet WP:WEB. eligatalk 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WEB "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." So did you happen to see on the entry the links to two published books where the newsgroup is mentioned? Or did you even look at the entry? I am curious because I am starting to get the feeling a lot of people are just voting delete out of a prejudice against the inclusion of a usenet group and NOT actually reading the entry and the cited and sourced information. TruthCrusader 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this article doesn't even require the cite and cleanup tags that the article probably required around the first time this was AfDed. Currently, the article asserts notability for the newsgroup, is cited, and, per Uncle G, has an FAQ on faqs.org (though it is admittedly a little dated at this point). Those factors make this article keep-worthy IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per Deathphoenix, he said everything I would say. TruthCrusader 10:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only 357 of those 40,000 Ghits are unique[1]. MaxSem 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the Google test listed in WP:WEB, and even Microsoft gets less than 1,000 because only the top 1,000 results are tested for uniqueness. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. Govvy 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had a really good reason last time and I don't remember it. Maybe WP:WEB or per nom or something. Anomo 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "per nom" in the speedy deleted AFD. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The issue is one of notability. There is a usenet newsgroup about almost every subject, so Individual usenet newsgroups can't be regarded as notable unless there is something exceptional about them. Alt.folklore.urban is a good example of a notable newsgroup; the dozens of alt.fan.* groups are a good example of why not all newsgroups are notable. In this case, does the article make a case for the notability of rec.sport.pro-wrestling independent of the notability of pro-wrestling? No, I'm afraid it doesn't. It is not exceptionally old, nor particularly high-traffic. Being quoted as a source for fan opinion makes it just that: a source, not an article of its own. Sam Blacketer 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it isnt old or high traffic? Didn't you read the stats for it on Google or, and I dont mean to sound sarcastic, didn't you bother to check anything at all?

here look at this link: [2] It has been around since 1990....how is that, in your words, NOT old? As far as high traffic...again, look at the numbers on the link and then come back here and tell me you think that isnt high traffic. TruthCrusader 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do find that it is neither exceptionally old nor high traffic. It was created in 1990. Usenet started in 1979, and many of the old "big 7" hierarchy groups date from the late 1980s. The number of posts is not exceptional. The group uk.politics.misc has approximately the same number of posts per month at the moment. Sam Blacketer 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is because the group wasn't created in 1979 at the BIRTH of usenet then, in your opinion, its not old. So 17 years for a usenet group is not old. Ok...right. Well I am sorry, and I do respect your right to an opinion mind you, but that totally smacks of Internet elitism to me. TruthCrusader 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, perhaps my meaning wasn't exactly clear. I'm considering whether this particular newsgroup can claim notability on grounds of age. It turns out to be 17 years old, which is no "spring chicken", but it's not an exceptional age for a big-7 usenet group (the great renaming happened in 1987). Sam Blacketer 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK we understand each other now then. The group doesn't claim to be notable because of age, it is just mentioned in the entry that it is old, but not that its notable because of that. cheers! TruthCrusader 10:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deathphoenix's above comments. -- Karl Meier 21:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete generic Usenet group. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of them, and simply having a faq on faqs.org does not constitute a claim to notability. No evidence is presented that this is any different fomr the rest, therefore this is a directory entry (WP:NOT). Also seems to be largely motivated by vanity. Guy (Help!) 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is questionable whether or not faqs.org counts as an independent source. The question is what are there criteria for inclusion? This isn't discussed here, and since the rule is "when in doubt, don't delete", I'll evaluate the faq as one source for WP:WEB purposes, even though my personal opinion is that it probably really isn't independent. GRBerry 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- per what I already said the first time. Arthur Fonzarelli 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• was "marginally notable" and "The Internet wrestling community mentality evolved from this group with Scott Keith and Rick Scaia as early contributors even though I was not allowed to put that even with a source but it would have helped somewhat in notability." Hmm... here is the diff. Clearly not an independent source for WP:WEB basis, but if it had been said independently that would be worth thinking about. GRBerry 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trolling removed

I think the above two votes by this Perkoff individual (more than likely another Chad sock) need to be discounted AND removed from this page as they are offensive. TruthCrusader 12:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same reasons as last time. Much like web forums, usenet groups are not considered notable by default, and having read the article I don't see any grounds to consider this any particular exception. The "sources", such as they are, fall into the "trivial coverage" category and therefore fail WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus the word "sport" is misused in this case... Guy (Help!) 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is huh....I;d like to see YOU get your butt in that ring and do some of the things they do. TruthCrusader 09:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING IN PROGRESS. If you wish to add new opinions, please do so, I will check. GRBerry 22:14, 16 January 2007 (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.