Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (3rd nomination)

Add links
From 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 of the debate was No consensus, though I agree with Humus sapiens that this was renominated too soon and could have been speedy-closed. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver Video Review[edit]

Does not meet criteria for WP:WEB and therefore should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, it does not have any mainstream credibility beyond a very small niche in the Internet Wrestling Community. Just because it survived afD last time doesn’t mean that its notability was established.

During the last debate, I was not aware of WP:WEB and therefore did not bring it up in the debate. I apologize for that; I was still learning Wikipedia at the time and in fact I am still learning it, and probably will not have the full hang of it for another year or two, but I am definitely learning.

Regardless, there is nothing in WP:WEB about the number of hits a web site gets; therefore the argument last time that it has a 15,000 or whatever ranking on Alexa is entirely irrelevant.

      • If you believe it should not be deleted, then please point out examples of mainstream publications that have covered DVDR - i.e. magazines, newspapers, periodicals, etc. I am not aware that there are any, meaning that per Wikipedia policy this article should be deleted.

Also, please when debating this issue keep WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind. Last debate, a few users were not so civil and as a result the discussion ended up going south pretty fast.

With all due respect to them, none of the writers from DVDR - be it Schneider, Rasmussen, Sweetser, or anyone else - has in any way significantly impacted the Internet Wrestling Community--i.e. like a Scott Keith or someone like that. This is a fluff entry probably started by people who work for the web site and as we all know, Wikipedia is not meant for advertisements.

Specifically, it must meet this criteria:

Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

JB196 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)***[reply]



  • Delete - see above explanation.JB196 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't particularly like or frequent it, but it's an Internet Wrestling Community and smark cornerstone, with roots going back to 1995 on Usenet (group rec.sport.pro-wrestling). Professional wrestler Lance Storm took the subject of their critique seriously enough. And yes, good Alexa ranking, yadda yadda. Papacha 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rankings do not hold any relevance according to WP:WEB. If you can show me where Wikipedia policy puts value to Alexa rankings, then I will withdraw that claim. Also, as established at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bleeding_Was_Only_Half_the_Job, it does not matter at all whether professional wrestlers have in any way endorsed web sites or online articles about pro wrestling. It must have mainstream credibility (coverage in publications) to be featuredon Wikipedia. Therefore, with all due respect, your argument does not hold much strength, Papacha.JB196 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo the yadda-yadda; WP:WEB is really a rough guideline.
Verbosity wasn't called for, as it wasn't the basis of my argument. Neither was random bolding to get my point across, for that matter. I'll assume good faith and figure this has nothing to do with TheSmartMarks.com being recently put up for deletion, which you have been instrumental in trying to save. Papacha 00:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether its a "rough" guideline, it is a guideline and as I said the precedent - judging by other similar entries - supports this guideline.
I am not engaging in verbosity. As you can see by my extensive initial explanation at the top of this page, it is simply the way I write. I like to fully explain my point so that you know how I came to my conclusion. I will also assume good faith and assume you did not realize this at first glance and misinterpreted by post. It is of my understanding that Lance Storm's involvement does not at all impact the notability of the entry's subject.JB196 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that "verbosity" referred to my edit, yes? Otherwise, it seems you're prepped and ready for a argument (as you mention the degredation of the prior AfD) in which case I prescribe a cold bucket o' water and a deep breath. No one here's trying to escalate or be insultive, 'kay? Papacha 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am totally confused by what you mean by "You do know that "verbosity" referred to my edit, yes?".JB196 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oy! This is going on way too long and taking away from the AfD at hand (this is Talk Page 101), but alright. "And yes, good Alexa ranking, yadda yadda" isn't being verbose. Heck, it barely qualifies as concise. What it means is I didn't expand on Alexa because it wasn't my edit's linchpin, while in turn it was the first topic you expounded on in the reply.
Anything else would be best left to user talk to avoid making further comments über-lengthy and to get the AfD back on point. Papacha 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


STRONG KEEP I am only going to say this once: JB you are wasting everyone's time with your obsession to get this article deleted. It has survived your attempts in the past and yet you refuse to let it go. Be careful, repeatedly listing the same article for deletion is a violation of Wiki policy. I am going to get an admin to review this and possibly revoke this AfD. TruthCrusader 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I presume this little spat in the professional wrestling community is as fake as the sport itself. Correct? -- GWO
    I wouldn't know how to answer the opening bell. My tastes for drooling fanaticism have altered over the years, and I'm sadly out of practice. Only a closet full of WCW Prime and assorted supershows stands as my sad legacy. Though it is a bit off this was nommed again so soon for deletion, just to segue this on a technicality. I rarely post to AfD, so y'all would know the criteria for keeping/cleaving an article far better than I. Papacha 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A website should not have an article unless it has had a huge, profound effect on the real world, and a wrestling website does not meet this criterion. McPhail 09:40, 11 June 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.
  1. ^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
  2. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  3. ^ Examples:
  4. ^ Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
  5. ^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais has a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_Valley_Driver_Video_Review_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1069660146"