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. This term has zero external sources, WP:V takes absolute precedence. Sandstein 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smark (professional wrestling)[edit]

No sources, original research Arthur Fonzarelli 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism for a small community. --SkierRMH, 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote for now. I would say that this is more OR than Internet wrestling community which at least has some sources. If IWC is deleted than I would vote delete based on the same criteria, if that article is kept I would say this should be kept too. MrMurph101 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH's vote. Blacklist 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article should be deleted. It has some information regarding a largely informal community. At the same time, the information here is quite close to being correct. It should not be termed neologism for a small community. The community might be small, but nobody knows its actual size. Who knows, it might be a very big community. But, that's not the point. The information in this article is correct. So, this article should not be deleted. LightningStruck 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term SMARK is all over the web community. It has been mentioned in several professional wrestling websites (this can be proven, of course, when you use the term in search engines). Somebody even made a blog named after it: http://thesmark.blogspot.com. So please, keep this valuable source of pro wrestling information. THE ASIAN BOMB, Pepe alas 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Everything in this article is completely true. This is the best description of SMARKS I've ever seen. --arns, 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — rack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - for all the reasons discussed atthe AfD discussion] for Internet wrestling community. If it hasn't been reported from outside the industry, then this article is having a severe problem with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. B.Wind 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with anything that is trade based you are going to be stuck with terms that are not known by the general public, not to mention a lexicon that sounds completly forgein to the passerby. Smark has been in usage for several years now, long before there was an internet wrestling community most famously applied to Dave Meltzer, who ran newsletters at the time.NegroSuave 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article should be deleted. It has some information regarding a largely informal community. At the same time, the information here is quite close to being correct. It should not be termed neologism for a small community. The community might be small, but nobody knows its actual size. Who knows, it might be a very big community. But, that's not the point. The information in this article is correct. So, this article should not be deleted. Sanjaysaini1 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) — Sanjaysaini1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Pro wrestling fans are not exactly a small community, and most of them are going to fall into the category described here. Umlautbob 10:48, 9 December 2006 (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.