Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 10#War on week-by-week

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ROH_World_Heavyweight_Championship_defenses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ROH_Pure_Championship_defenses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ROH_World_Tag_Team_Championship_defenses

Why were these even made? It's listcruft and useless trivia that doesn't belong here. Ring of Honor is a popular indy fed, but either way.. a list of title defenses certainly doesn't belong here. I put prods on all three, and I'll wait and see what happens. But they should just be AFD'd and then removed. RobJ1981 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• It also looks like all they did was copy the info that ROH lists on their website, so there is a copyright issue as well. Even if Copywright wasn't a problem I would support deleting these. 07:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:I put AFD on the world heavyweight defenses (since the prod was deleted). Even if they are copyright issues, it's still useless trivia that doesn't belong here. I'm surprised the articles lasted so long, without getting deleted. RobJ1981 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

::They were made because the defenses were previously part of the articles on the titles themselves and made the tables ridiculously long. I did NOT copy-and-paste anything from their site, and frankly resent the implication. Tromboneguy0186 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::All three are AFD now. It's fancruft, listcruft...and simply just useless trivia. Title defenses aren't needed here. If I find any others, they will just tagged AFD right away. I tried just a prod to start, but of course people delete them... because they fail to realize it's just fancruft. RobJ1981 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Over five Diva Search contestant articles have been proposed for deletion over the past week. Personally, I oppose most of the deletions, but I'd like us to form a coherent policy on this. I think if we're going to delete the articles, we should merge contestant information into another page, be it WWE Diva Search or something like Minor contestants of the WWE Diva Search, I'm not sure. I just don't want to purge all the information we have here. Thoughts? -Umdunno 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think it should depend on what happened after they were eliminated. If they never appeared on WWE TV again of got WWE contracts, then maybe no. Otherwise I think they should be kept. TJ Spyke 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with TJ. If they simply did nothing after the diva search, they don't need an article. I'm strongly against a minor contestants page, it would be just useless trivia for one thing, and for another... it would encourage people to re-create minor diva search pages for some or all of the contestants. RobJ1981 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::The ones that got contracts from the most recent search are -

::::*Layla El

::::*Maryse Ouellet

::::*Rebecca DiPietro

::::*Milena Roucka (up for AFD)

::::*Amy Zidian (locked from recreation due to people creating repeatedly before she got a contract, needs a deletion review to get re-made) --- Lid 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, if they didn't do anything noteworthy after the Diva Search, then they probably shouldn't have articles. Is there a precedent set by articles on contestants on other reality contests? --Jtalledo (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Another problem: A lot of these women are affiliated with Playboy or modeling in some fashion, and have had minor acting roles. How should we assess notability in these cases? -Umdunno 03:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Milena Roucka sorry, linked to wrong name. --- Lid 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Update: Amy Zidian is now up for deletion review. --- Lid 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, the winner should have an article, and those who are regulars on WWE programming (not necessarily by just being signed) should have articles. I don't think being in the contest itself asserts notability. And being a playboy model is iffy, they have so many different magazines and websites, I don't think that asserts notability by default. And most of the acting credits that these contestants have are just bit parts in minor movies, not even close to notable. Also keep track that many pages have been deleted and protected, including two of the top 3 from this year's search. Quality, not quantity, is what WP and we need. Renosecond 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read the edit history and the talk page. Tells the whole story. Tromboneguy0186 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And this obviously impacts Rob Van Dam and John Layfield as well. We need a strict consensus and probably a semi-protect since this anon just won't quit. Tromboneguy0186 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only do we have alumni pages, but we also have alumni categories. I was thinking, do we really need both? If we can list the wrestlers in an alumni category, are the alumni pages really necessary? --James Duggan 08:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, this was the reason List of WCW alumni was up for deletion a while ago. It seems rather redundant, although the lists do include some extra info about the person's role in the promotion. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::A list and category is redundant. I think the categories for alumni should be deleted. The list pages are far more useful. RobJ1981 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I asked if a mention and/or summary of every single defense of the ROH World Heavyweight Title was necessary on the entry's discussion page (unfortunately I had a brainfart and forgot to sign it). It seems that the suggestion has gone on deaf ears, as it didn't receive any response and users continue to update after every single title defense. Does including every title defense in that section constitute "week by week" updates? I'd be interested to see some feedback on this, as the last thing I want to do is to start a huge Edit War on that page and I'm still not quite 100% certain as to my stance on the issue (though I do think it's gotten out of hand). Deputy Marshall 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Someone has taken it further and created a page of EVERY title defense in the title's histories. Title defenses are not really notable. TJ Spyke 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

His page is badly in need of an update and/or revision! Take a look and you will see what I mean! --Smart Mark Greene 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to create a section in recent WrestleMania Articles about the changes on the DVD. Does anyone know of a website that outlines the differences? I had a couple of links but lost them in a hard drive crash. Kyros 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think those are notable enough to go in the articles. TJ Spyke 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::You do not think it's notable enough that the WWE alters the original show. For example, removing the boos in the Goldberg-Lesnar match and putting in cheers. Also, editing the the Mickie James/Trish Stratus match to remove the crotch grab and the botched finished. Also, the removal of Jesse Ventura's commentary from the original events. I think it's notable because it alters what really happened during that event. Kyros 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't think it's notable enough that it needs a full on section in every article, but where the changes are major (like the ones you just mentioned) they could be mentioned in the notes sections. Bdve

::::They did not remove Jesse Ventura's commentary. Rent or buy the WrestleMania Anthology set and you will see(or hear) that his commentary is still there. TJ Spyke 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::A section has already been provided in the main WrestleMania article. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestlemania#Video_box_sets] -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Go take a look at Jesse Ventura's article Kyros 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I think you're reading it wrong, which isn't unusual because the Ventura thing has been confusing to a lot of people. Ventura's commentary is removed from a lot of older VHS/DVDs, but it is all there for the recent box set. Bdve

::::You making a crack about my reading ability :-) lol. All I'm want to do is similar to what IMDB has on their page, Alternate Version. Kyros 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::DVD changes aren't notable, leave them off. RobJ1981 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I do not understand how they are not notable. Heck, there is an article that outlines changes in Star Wars List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Listing the changes counteracts the WWE's revisionist history because that is what they are doing, revising wrestling/sports entertainment history Kyros 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tag team page is insane and I think we need to break it into at least three articles. One for tag teams in general (including the history) one for matches and another for all the titles that are on the bottom. I'll move the matches myself, I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on toes with it. - Bdve

Hey, folks. I'm just doing some page patrolling, and came across an article on Sam Hayne that has my notability sense flashing. (Mostly because the author is using that name to edit under, which makes the problem of vanity a major one.) I'm torn on whether to do a deletion process on this article (note that it was originally tagged with a speedy deletion tag, userfied by another person, and then restarted by the subject, who then removed a proposed deletion tag I hit it with), but wanted to look at just what level of notability you folks consider for guys who haven't made the big shows yet. Is this guy of a level where he should be included? If I'm asking the question, as a casual wrestling fan, others will certainly be asking it as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well if the person isn't with WWE, TNA or a well known other fed: Ring of Honor, Japan, etc. It's hard to determine. As for Sam Hayne, it looks to be vanity for one thing, which shouldn't be allowed, period. There is a NWA Wisconsin page (which Sam Hayne works for, according to the article), but that certainly isn't enough to make him notable in my opinion. NWA W isn't that notable for Wikipedia, but others will disagree with me on that one. I took a look at wrestling promotions: and there is 161 total in that category: :Category:Professional_wrestling_promotions. Many promotions don't belong even on Wikipedia, and the category should be cleaned up in my opinion. It seems like any fan of a smaller or lesser promotion just adds their favorite, and it either lasts or finally gets an AFD a while later. There is a wrestling wiki (if I remember right), many of the lesser promotions should be there, and not on this main wiki. Wikipedia = encyclopedia of userful and meaningful content. It shouldn't be cluttered with many lesser promotions that hardly anyone has heard of. RobJ1981 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::That's about what I thought, too. Maybe I'll make a note of cruising through that category at some point soon and see if I can weed it out a bit. Thanks for the second look at the article, too - much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for Menace 2 Society (wrestler). James Duggan 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I know the real Sam Hayne personally and I highly doubt that he put the article online. While I agree that the article is hardly notable, it's probably my fault. It's been a wanted page since the creation of the All-Star Championship Wrestling article was created. I think when it went up, links were added for every mentioned wrestler to see if they already had pages. I planned on going back and removing the majority of the redlinks, but never got to it. Bret is a multi time champion of many titles and has worked in Japan. He has also had a dark matchor two for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) under a different gimmick, but I don't know if that makes him notable. If the page goes to WP:AFD, I will remove the redlinks to him. - NickSentowski 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Unless someone gets there before me, I'll be taking it to AfD after work, as the PROD tag has been removed again, without comment. As the above comment suggests, if wrestlers haven't broken the "big leagues" as it were, the notability is suspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::And done. Anyone wants to weigh in, there you go. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I've put prods on several lesser promotions, and will continue to be against non-notable promotions and wrestlers. People really need to realize Wikipedia can't list every wrestler and promotion ever. Dennis Stamp and many of the diva search contestants are prime examples of non-notable things that don't belong here. RobJ1981 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Wrestling Federation (UWF) and Bishop Steele should be deleted as well. They were created by User:Menace 2 Society(wrestler), who also created the Menace 2 Society(wrestler) article I mentioned earlier. James Duggan 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well I've reached a snag in marking things. I put prods on several things, and an adminstrator removed them due to them being "verifible". I think it's just wrong: Wikipedia shouldn't just list things because they are real and are known. It should be if they are popular and well known: not just because they exist and aren't something made up. RobJ1981 10:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::If a proposed deletion tag is removed and you feel the reason given is incorrect, go ahead and run it through AfD. It takes a bit longer and is a bit annoying, but if you can show that its notability is not strong enough to be encyclopedic (like lacking in Google hits, etc.), then it's probably for the best. Even if it's kept, what will result is usually a stronger article with good sources and better writing. (One note for you: I looked at your contributions to see which articles were de-prodded, and noted you don't use edit summaries all that often; if you're prodding something, it might be best to put a short comment in to indicate reasoning. It's also good to use edit summaries whenever possible, just 'cause.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Rob i know your all for removing articles for wrestlers you feel have low notability... so why have you not but your article for Trent Acid in this line up... Not only does this article, which like your Timothy Well article, are in serious need of clean up but it concerns an independant wrestler that has appeared in promotions that either have no television deal or has one in the United Kingdom... maybe you should concentrate on making these articles good quality before deleting other ppls work.. --- sorry but i just think notabillity is a point of view and that we should concentrate on making articles better rather than deleting them.... yet i can understand that not every promotion and wrestler needs an article and when we can we should avoid making each individual an article Paulley 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Um, ROH? Trent's wrestled there. That's a pretty notable promotion. I'm not very familiar with the US indy scene as I am from Canada, but even I've heard of Trent Acid. And if he's notable enough to be listed by Gerweck.net, then he's notable enough for here (Steve Gerweck only lists the top indy talent. Heck, we have a lot more wrestlers on here). James Duggan 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't about point of view, it was about things being notable and known. Improving articles is fine and well, BUT it doesn't make a huge difference if only a few people have heard of that wrestler. Wikipedia isn't your personal website for all your favorites (that for the most part, people have never heard of). RobJ1981 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::The problem with notability, is that not everyone that would believe somthing to be notable is on WikiPedia. Notability is a point-of-view and is relative. My stupid AFD on Lawn dart is an extreme example. I didn't find lawn darts notable because the article I nominated was written poorly, but apparently they were a huge fad when I was about 3 years old... How was I supposed to know this? The same goes for any other article, including but not limited to Indy Wrestling. I think it'd be best if we'd make some concrete law for the Pro-Wrestling project that determine notability, such as promotions that trained employees in the big three(er... WWE etc.) and the champions of those promotions are automaticly notable. What's the worst that can happen, the servers have to store an extra 150 words of listcruf? I don't really think that WP:NN is as big of an issue as people make it out to be, that's just my 2cents. - NickSentowski 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, I'm sure Trent Acid is more notable than many other wrestlers listed here. Anyway, that aside, I propose that we try and establish a set of rules that would deem a wrestler notable enough for Wikipedia. That way we can save this type of frustration. James Duggan 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Like i said notabillity is a point of view.. i have heard of Trent Acid and as far as i know the UK and Canada is the only place ROH has television deals... but the likes of Bubblegum have appeared in Frontier Wrestling Alliance, and 1 Pro Wrestling, very notable promotions in the United Kingdom... so how can you say that one is more notable than the other. As for Gerweck.net, it doesnt really cover much outside the United States. --- Paulley

::::ROH is not shown in Canada to the best of my knowledge. I thought it was only shown in the States. James Duggan 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::The article states its on the fight network of Canada and TWC in England.... its only showing in America is through DVD releases and live shows --- Paulley

I hate to bring this up again so soon, but no one seemed to notice. I'm just asking for a consensus from WP:PW, and if I'm wrong, fine. Tromboneguy0186 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had to go back to the February archives to see what you were talking about, but I'm still not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking specifically about what qualifies someone as a Grand Slam Champion? If that's the case, I think a debate is pointless as it's anyone WWE would consider a Grand Slam Champion. Regardless, I think the non-existence now of a Euro title might be moot, since I seem to remember then using the term before that belt came into existence, so I'd assume that one could also qualify as such now that the belts no longer in existence. And not to seem like we're going crazy with AfDs, but I have to wonder if this article should even exist on Wikipedia...the dinstinction itself now seems abritrary and like something that might be appropriate for a wrestling-specific Wiki, but maybe not a general Wiki? Idunno. Deputy Marshall 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Nevermind, somehow missed the thread above. I still think, though, that the whole debate might be somewhat moot. Deputy Marshall 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I thought the edit histories and the talk page were self-explanatory. Me and the anon were in an edit war over whether JBL counted based on his comments on "a recent episode of Smackdown" (which whether it's good enough for inclusion or not is an absolute BS citation). I contended that that wasn't good enough to include him, the anon kept putting him back in. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but in the past when other belts were used as subs for the Grand Slam they were accompanied by citations from WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh, and as for the AFD, I think Triple Crown Champion is a much better candidate for it. Rife with OR, and it was never specifically defined by anyone anyway. This is apparent by reading the article - A world title, a second-tier title, and a tag team title? Some sources please! WWE, on the other hand, have referred to their Grand Slam champions both on the web and in shows many times. Tromboneguy0186 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider semi-protection for this article. The anon WrestleCrappers has struck again! They are also targeting the Dennis Stamp article as well. I've already tagged them with the 3RR Warning. Duo02 *Shout here!** 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some incorrect reverts to this article, trying to maintain the stats at what they have been for a long time. I didn't notice the name change.(Halbared 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

User:Samgibbs, and his other IP have been causing me alot of hasstle lately due to me stopping him using wikipedia as a secondary homepage for his local wrestling promotion, RQW. I have been changing his edits on the page to fit with formatting and the look of a wrestling article and well as the tense as his version read like news post (which they are; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Quality_Wrestling&diff=72194745&oldid=72188202 this change])... This has been goin on for almost six months with him gettin more and more angry.. yet i have tried to show him how to edit correctly and given pointers he seem now intent on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paulley&action=history leaving personal attacks] on my user page which he useds as a talk page (because he doesnt seem to get that they are different things... you understand what im up against here) --- any help or advice would be appriciated --- Paulley

:I guess you could start a request for comment about the user. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Lol, he just left a very apologetic note on my talk page (yes he actually used my talk page) asking for my help as a few of his sub-par articles have been put up for deletion --- Paulley 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to keep watch on the Dennis Stamp article. Several anon. editors may keep readding the "The Dennis Stamp Film Collection" section again. This is obviously Fancruft work. Thanks. Duo02 *Shout here!** 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:I performed some minor clean-up on the article; it's on my Watchlist so I can keep an eye out. Personally, part of me wonders if we should nominate the article for deletion. His scenes stood out as they were some of the stranger (and subsequently more amusing) aspects of the film, but I don't know if that alone should warrant an entire entry. And not to completely discount him, as I'm sure there are some people out there remember him from when he was active, but as far as I know he really didn't accomplish anything in his career that would warrant the existence of a Wikipedia entry (as harsh as that sounds). Thoughts? Deputy Marshall 10:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::I've done it 4 times today alone, I quit. - Bdve 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys should call for a temporary lock against the anon contribs. for this article. Duo02 *Shout here!** 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I've actually gone a step further and nominated the page for deletion. This isn't a "quick fix" to the edit war at all; rather, it's due to my personal view that regardless of the Fancruft aspect, I really don't think he's notable enough to justify an entry to begin with. Deputy Marshall 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:NOTE - Sorry for the brainfart. Deletion Discussion Page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Stamp Deputy Marshall 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if he qualifies as an article under the internet meme guidelines, but didn't he have somewhat of a mid-card career in the florida territories in the 70s? But I did give a weak delete vote. Renosecond 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::That's what I grappled with right before I nominated it. What I ultimately decided is that while he wasn't a guy who was just around for a few months and retired, his work was not that notable in that he never seemed to achieve even upper-midcard status. In other words, the conclusion I've reached in all I've read about him is that to say he "never made it to the main event" would be putting it very lightly. If he wasn't even all that notable on a regional level, he certainly isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Deputy Marshall 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for this that I need to know that keeps this article alive before I afd it as listcruft? --- Lid 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'd have to say no. Thanks for catching it. :) -Umdunno 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I've proposed it for deletion for now unless some other editor removes it. --Oakster ^(Talk) 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It's listcruft. I wonder if any other show archives exist? I wouldn't be surprised at all, if others do exist. RobJ1981 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:There are results pages for TNA Impact!. Type in "TNA Results" in the search bar and you will see there is one for EVERY MONTH. A seperate article for March 2006, April 2006, etc. TJ Spyke 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's a ton of unnecessary results articles. I mean, RAW Bowl? - Bdve

:::I think all the articles mentioned in this thread thus far might qualify for a speedy delete. Deputy Marshall 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I noticed the Impact results when I just visited the TNA Impact! page. All these results are listcruft/fancruft and don't need to be here, period. TNA Xplosion used to have a ton of results but I cleaned it. It's TNA's secondary show, but I don't think many of the matches are that notable. Then there is Professional wrestling tours of Australia. I don't know if this page should even exist. If it does remain, it needs cleaning as well. There is no point to list results for every show in Australia, when many of them aren't that notable in the first place. --RobJ1981 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Here's another one The 51 Worst Offenders In WWE History --- Lid 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::I've had to put that for AFD due to the removal of the prod tag. I've just added the prod tag to Raw Roulette and WWE Fight Night, with the latter pretty much a hoax which I don't believe I can list for speedy deletion. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I did a google search on both, and didn't come up with much decent information. An editor of Phil Blitz improved the article, but that certainly doesn't make the wrestler more notable. We really need to go through wrestlers and promotions more and AFD the non-notable ones more. RobJ1981 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I commented on both. In the case of Blitz, I support a delete with the note that he hasn't attained enough notoriety yet to warrant an article...though he could sometime in the future, but that's not the case right now. In the case of the UWF, I remember hearing and reading an awful lot about them when I was a kid in the mid to late nineties. Maybe we could put out an open call for expansion of the article before deleting? Deputy Marshall 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• As I was looking through new pages, I noticed yet another ECW show was created. I went to the category: and many shows are listed. Many don't seem that notable. Is there any ECW experts here? From the looks of it, the same user is creating any ECW show that had a special name to it. A special name for a show doesn't mean it's notable. Some examples of just some of the shows that appear to be non-notable: ECW Natural Born Killaz, ECW Enter The Sandman and ECW Ultra Clash. I've put prods on several, feel free to AFD if you want. RobJ1981 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Also take a look at List of ECW pay-per-view events, the same user has been listing every ECW show with a special name as a non-PPV supercard. I think that's just wrong. Just because a show has a special name doesn't always mean it's considered a "supercard". While I'm no ECW expert, I think a bit of fancruft is going on here. RobJ1981 04:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I put PROD tags on some(and someone else put it on others), hopefully they won't remove the tags. If they do then just nominate them for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I checked them: all prods (from the looks of it) seem to be gone, all thanks to some user that isn't registered. If there is a way to do a mass AFD, that would be helpful here. RobJ1981 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm a little busy at the moment, but this page explains how to nominate multiple articles: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. TJ Spyke 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Here's another: Warriors of Wrestling. It's an episode guide of every AWF television show from 95-96. Fancruft/listcruft yet again. I will look at that page, but I don't have alot of free time either right now. RobJ1981 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh man, that needs to be deleted just so we can all forget about it. - Bdve

:::::Could someone do the mass AFD for me? I don't have alot of free time, and the sooner they go up, the sooner they are gone. RobJ1981 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I restored the tags for the articles in question, as they were removed for no reason whatsoever. Renosecond 03:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::You shouldn't have done that, Wikipedia's rules state that PROD tags should not be put back if they are removed(for any reason). The thing to do now is to nominate the articles for deletion. Since I am about to go to sleep, maybe someone else can do it. These seem to be the articles that need to be deleted:

ECW Born To Be Wired, ECW Double Tables, ECW Beer, Blood, Babes, and Barbed Wire, ECW When Worlds Collide, ECW The Night The Line Was Crossed, ECW Ultra Clash, ECW Enter The Sandman TJ Spyke 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I absoultely should have done that, as the tags were removed without a reason given, pretty much, if you give a reason that is valid in an edit summary or the talk page, then it can be removed, not just without specifing something, so I did nothing wrong. Renosecond 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Read Wikipedia's policy: *Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. TJ Spyke 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::That's just it, "any reason", there was no reason given to why the tags were removed, so they were not removed properly. They did not put anything in an edit summary, they did not put anything on a talk page, or here, I was right. Renosecond 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As a result of a discussion on notability above, I propose we, as a WikiProject, set some guidelines as to what makes a wrestler or promotion notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia. --James Duggan 22:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. Obviously most (not all) people from WWF/E, TNA, WCW, ECW and AWA should be included. I said most, because jobbers that appeared for a few matches (and didn't do anything else in their career) aren't notable. RobJ1981 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::I've been thinking about this too. I think the criteria for notability should be objective, if possible, to avoid the "lawn dart" situation. For promotions, there should be some sort of criterion for automatic notability, perhaps a television deal, or the ability to draw crowds of 5,000 people. (note: this doesn't mean smaller promotions would automatically be not notable). This would help us determine notability for promotions in places other than the USA, whose notability it might be hard for us to judge subjectively. Another criterion could be any promotion that contests an "authentic" World Championship (Singles or Tag). Then, for wrestlers, we could grant automatic notability to any wrestler (or other personality) that was a regular member of a notable promotion's roster. Another criterion, suggested above, would be any wrestler that has possessed an "authentic" World Championship. That way, even if I've never heard of Manami Toyota or Mil Mascaras, I would consider them notable, and not commit a "lawn dart" faux pas.Geoffg 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::However, this is the English Wikipedia... note the first suggested criteria concerns pro wrestling in America.... and as the likes of Shirley "Big Daddy" Crabtree never wrestled for those promotions does that mean he should be deleted... in the England, Ireland and other English language contries that simply would not apply. --- Paulley 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Ooh while were here i was just thinking if we find promotions that dont need to be deleted but are in bad shape (you know the whole list of roster, list of shows, list of titles.. etc) do you think we could get them rewritten to the standard of Irish Whip Wrestling, a previously deleted article due to its list fathion which i was allowed by admistrators to readd in its rewritten state.. also do we need individual wrestler articles for tag teams.. The Highlanders (professional wrestling) for example; do we really need Rory and Robbie articles which repeat the same information. --- Paulley

:::::I've noticed that too about certain tag teams, especially the Shane Twins. James Duggan 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I never once said only American wrestlers should be on the site, so don't assume. I was just stating one guideline. Another guideline I think needs to be put in place: lists of television show results = listcruft and not needed. Wikipedia isn't the place for listing each and every television result of TNA, WWE, WCW, indy, etc. RobJ1981 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I completally agree with the removing of list cruft stuff note the promotions idea... yea the Shane Twins is one example... i wouldnt think of making individual articles for Bulk and Big Dave (UK Pitbulls) cus it seem pointless... i think i might put a merge tag on the Todd and Mike, and on Rory and Robbie --- Paulley

:::::I have merged Mike and Todd into Shane Twins... it was mainly a repeat of the same information just copied and pasted into three articles so i dont think there can be much objection.. what do you guys think --- Paulley

::::::Good call. Seeing as how they've been a tag team, are currently a tag team, and to the best of my knowledge (and any times I've seen them at least) always been a tag team. No reason for them to have single entries. And ditto for Rory and Robbie. It's one thing to make seperate entries for tag teams that broke up and split into their own singles careers, but that hasn't happened and if it does most likely won't result in either being notable enough on their own to warrant it. Deputy Marshall 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I'm gonna have problems with this user on the TNA roster page. He wants to delete all nicknames from that page and threatens to keep deleting when we revert back. I left him a message, but I just want to warn everyone. --James Duggan 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He might just be trying to make it like the WWE Roster Page

BionicWilliam 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe, but if he is he's going about it the wrong way. Besides, the WWE page includes certain nicknames too, and the TNA page doesn't include all nicknames, just ones that are part of the ring name. --James Duggan 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think nicknames should only be included on certain wrestlers, like "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan. I don't think A.J. Styles should be listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles, for example. TJ Spyke 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::But his bio on TNA's website has him listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles. When he's announced by the ring announcer, he's billed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles. I'd say, in those types of cases, the nickname stays, since it is obviously an integral part of the ring name. James Duggan 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick summary: This article is up for Afd, in part because there are multiple articles about this individual including one about his wrestling career as Johnny Angel (wrestler). I just attempted to merge the wrestling article into the real name article per a growing consensus in the Afd (he's also a former member of the KKK and has, to me, a rather interesting bio.) In the course of doing this merge I found myself confused because I don't know a thing about pro wrestling. Mostly I'm having trouble distinguishing exactly what "belt" he holds and what wrestling organization awarded it. The orginal article is a bit hard to follow for a novice like myself. I'd love it if someone would give the original article a read, then check my section on Johnny Lee Clary to see if I transferred the info correctly. Thanks! Dina 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Firstly, thanks for contacting us! Secondly, I re-wrote some of the section and included a link at the bottom of the entry for his profile on onlineworldofwrestling.com. Hope that helps! Deputy Marshall 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I love your rewrite. Thanks so much for the help! Dina 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he may be a sockpuppter, he may not be, but from some recent edits a few random IP's have been making I think it's possible. He is an admitted vandal (talk page) and used to liken himself to will on wheels.

Here is one poss sockpuppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89

(Halbared 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

A user (also a member of this project) keeps replacing the detailed information of the championship wins with just the amount of times each title was won on Triple H. --Aaru Bui 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:This is an encyclopedia. Detailed information on fictional title wins is not encyclopedic, and in the case of a prolific wrestler like Triple H, only succeeds in bloating the article. If a reader wants that kind of information, they can either visit a site like onlineworldofwrestling.com, or start their own wrestling wiki. - Chadbryant 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Chadbryant, and I like the way that the Triple H page looks now, and it should be kept simple like this, there are other places to get the info. Renosecond 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::personally i prefer it the other way... there was some talk in making the other info avaliable in (show) boxes... i think its the tag titles that cause most problems with the simple list... as Trips is only had one tag partner per tag title it come out ok but if you are talking a wrestler thats had a different partner for ever title run then the simple list looks silly... plus the information was added to stop users from placing succession boxes with articles... anyway i think it should be voted on --- Paulley 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::There are also several other avantages with the format, it allows to place belts in chronological order, differenchiate between titles that have changed name (WWF to WWE), and like i have already noted then we wouldnt have succession boxes --- Paulley

::::I think it's too confusing with so many lines. Well I'm glad this was brought up. --Aaru Bui 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::If the person hasn't won too many titles, then it's OK to list them when and where they won and lost the titles and who they won/lost them from. If they have won too many though(like Jerry Lawler and his 26 USWA Titles) then just listing how many times they won should be sufficient. TJ Spyke 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::I would rather see the detailed information hidden, or put on another page, like Ric Flair's championships, than removed from WP. I would say that if someone has won a ton of championships, they might be more deserving of having their details listed than someone who has not won very much.Geoffg 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::How about Chadbryant's idea of it being not encyclopedic? --Aaru Bui 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I would rather see the information hidden rather than removed completally... cus it was removed you wouldnt be saving any space as not before long someone will re-add championship sucession boxes and we fought long and hard to remove those --- Paulley

:::The only way I know to hide stuff is using Template:Hidden or Template:Hidden begin with Template:Hidden end. --Aaru Bui 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:So are we going to throw this to a vote and try to compromise on it or something? It actually seems to be coming up more often recently. I like the idea of listing, but hiding, them but personally never saw the point of putting details like place. There's gotta be a happy medium. - Bdve 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'd like to address something, it's not exactly the purpose of this particular discussion, but it does involve it to some degree. It involves listing the WWE Undisputed Championship and it's listing as a seperate title from the WWE Championship. If it's the WWE's position that the Undisputed Championship is part of the WWE Championship's 43 year lineage, then doesn't that mean that's how it should be in the articles? Wouldn't doing otherwise be putting in personal opinion instead of WWE canon? Since it's a championship that's the literal property of the WWE, doesn't the WWE sort of get the last word about it and it's lineage? Odin's Beard 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:ROH World Heavyweight Championship Tromboneguy0186 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

: Quick question - I've seen it said before that the title's official designation is "ROH World Heavyweight Title," so I was going to oppose. However, I do not see the promotion refer to it as anything except the "ROH World Title," particularly on its website (ROHwrestling.com). Could someone please cite? Deputy Marshall 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

: [http://www.rohwrestling.com/history.asp ROHwrestling.com's title history page] says "world heavyweight title." And I would be of the opinion that this is the correct name for the belt. As I said in the RM, I wouldn't support this move but I think the decision needs to be made conclusively, even if the result is one of "just leave it where it is" rather than explicitly favoring "ROH World Heavyweight Championship" Tromboneguy0186 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::Cool, thanks. Don't know how I didn't see that or find it. Deputy Marshall 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, check again! The website has revamped. [http://www.rohwrestling.com/titlehistory/ The new title history page] DOES NOT use the word "heavyweight." Tromboneguy0186 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with this article?(Halbared 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

:User:JB196 (aka Jonathan Barber) wants his name added to the article because he wrote it on wiki... he doesnt understand that you contribute to wiki freely and that we dont credit arselfs within the article text and that are edits are just traked with the pages edit history... and for that reason he want to revert the page back to its stub state prior to his edits. --- Paulley 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) --- so you guys wannna start tagging the 1000s upon 1000s of contributions we write a month!!!!!!

::That's messed, considering JB most likely got that info from somewhere else, meaning those sources should be given credit, not him. --James Duggan 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Same goes for Texas Wrestling Academy which a few weeks back lead to this amusing confrontation:

::::*"Below is a full list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy, compiled by Jonathan Barber:" - original text by JB186

::::*"Below is an incomplete list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy:" - new text after I added other graduates and was told by an ex-student it was missing a class of students. I used the edit summary "this isn't complete, a quick googling shows it lacking wrestlers and an ex-student has informed me it's missing an entire class"

::::*"Below is an incomplete list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy, compiled by Jonathan Barber:" - JB186 changed it to this with the edit summary "Nobody said it was a list of all the graduates. Hello??? Of course its incomplete."

:::Apparently "full" doesn't mean "all" and i'm an idiot. Yeah that makes sense. --- Lid 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I need some help with him right now. He's still active in the Vic Grimes article. He claims he will not stop reverting unless he is credited in the article as "The Author". We need an admin here now. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Give him wanrings, if he doesn't stop then get an admin. Tell him to read what it says when you edit a page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Especially since he probably just lifted thast info from somewhere else and didn't write it himself. TJ Spyke 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::I brought it up at the admin noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.5B.5BUser:JB196.5D.5D]. --- Lid 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Been there, Done that.... ain't working. -- bulletproof ^3:16

::The user needs a block if he keeps it up. The constant reverting is vandalism and simply not needed at all. RobJ1981 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The user believes that it is just me that opposes his vandalism. He fails to realize that this issue concerns him and all of Wikipedia. See below. I will personally give 1 million dollars to whomever can get through to him. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::i have been trying since he edited on wikipedia and i cant get it through to him i hope you have better luck --- Paulley 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Here's a new one, JB has spammed {{citationneeded}} tags through Vic Grimes, even the information he posted. This goes hand in hand with his previous effort of spamming templates on articles he wants deleted. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::To expand here's my post on admin notices:

JB has changed his modus operandi and is now spamming {{citationneeded}} tags through articles he himself has written. Examples can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_Wrestling_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=74175059] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&diff=74266186&oldid=73877906] (both articles done by JB in which he provided most of the material). JB tends to add numerous templates to articles when he doesn't get what he wants (see: 411mania, Extreme Warfare and Wrestling Spirit). Can an admin please intervene? This stuff has gone on for too long and he has shown no signs of stopping. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::He is using a new user account also User:Jonathan Burgess. --- Paulley

::::I'm actually not sure if that's the same user as the MO seems different and my discussions with him at Talk:Chris Hero were quite straight forward. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::True i saw that and his edits on CZW tag teams and wrestlers have been, for the most part, good efforts, and are JB hasnt been too much into the work of CZW... maybe its just me, i think everytime i see the initials JB i get worried... lol! actually i just checked are JB's second name is Barber false alarm... sorry new JB didnt mean to offend you -- Paulley

::::::I have no connection to this Jonathan Burgess dude. Please WP:AGF assume good faith in the future. I have never nor will I ever need to use a sockpuppet to get something done.JB196 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I already established that... anyway if you remeber i tried assuming good faith with you but then you resulted in your recent edits and subsequent blocking -Paulley

IMPORTANT JB196 has been indefblocked for violating WP:POINT, edit warring, trolling and insulting admins [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JB196]. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:Nah, Nah, Nah-Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah-Nah, Hey-ey-ey goodbye! ---- (sorry i couldnt resist) Paulley 08:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::Not just yet, guess who has started using AOL sock puppets? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=74653083#Indef_blocked_user_JB196_using_AOL_sock_puppets Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef blocked user JB196 using AOL sock puppets] –– Lid^(Talk) 02:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I've added this entire saga to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Miscellaneous lameness because this has to have been the most ridiculous escalation I have seen in my entire life. If I've left anything out feel free to edit it. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the conversation on the Vic Grimes talk page between myself and bullet:

Bullet, what is your position, exactly? Please link to specific Wikipedia policies. My position is that I am "self-reverting" (allowed under WP:3RR) and that by reverting my self-edit, a case can be made that you are vandalizing this article. I also take great offense to your negative comments about my intent in editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:ASG for more info on the "Assume good faith" policy which you are clearly in violation of.JB196 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::'''FROM OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICIES: WP:VANDALISM AND WP:OWN

:::Please DO NOT deliberately attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

::::Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

::::You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

:::::If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

::::If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

::::Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Sir, its your word against mine. You have no more right to "Revert" than I do. The WP:3RR policy cleary backs up my self-revert contention, while you must prove why exactly I am "deliberately attempting to violate the integrity of Wikipedia," which in and of itself is violating Wikipedia policy because that is far from true. I am going to bring this issue to the Arbitration Committee because you have not shown any willingness to work out this issue beyond quoting a vague page and continually violating the WP:3RR rule.JB196 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you agree to a mediation hearing, bullet?JB196 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I do not know what you intend to prove with this since users form the WP:PW including myself have pointed you towards the policies time and time again your numerous violations here on wikipedia. I suggest that you take this issue with the WP:PW talk page and discuss your actions with them. Hopefully then you will see that this is NOT my word against yours here, this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::My edit is protected under WP:3RR. Your revert is not protected, and as such you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether you are an admin, a novice, or somewhere in between here on Wikipedia, you are violating Wikipedia policy as outlined under WP:AGF. My edits do not fall under WP:3RR because the FACT is (and you cannot deny this) is that I have not more than three times in a day reverted this article to a version that has already existed. Please STOP violating Wikipedia's guidelines and accept the version of the article that has been UNIVERSALLY accepted. Nobody had contested Paulley's 13:40 5/9/06 version until I changed it (And I didn't contest it, I just added to it). You are violating both popular opinion on this article and you are violating Wikipedia policy. As such, you are the one vandalizing the article, sir. I don't care about my past edits. My past edits on Wikipedia (which have all been in good faith whether you want to believe that or not) have no role in this discussion...actually, I take that back...their role here is that they back up the fact that your accusation that I am intentionally disrupting the integrity of Wikipedia is proposterous and in violation of WP:AGF. It is not my responsibility to bring it to the WP:Pro Wrestling audience; it is your's. And furthermore, I feel that the Mediation Committee would be better off discussing this matter.

"this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced" - This is also my contention, so it IS my word against yours.

Again, for the umpteenth time, my edit is protected under WP:3RR and you have not offered any response otherwise.JB196 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::Discuss this with other more experienced editors here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. I apparently can't get through to you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::It would not be a violation of WP:AGF to say that - with all due respect, you are like talking to a brick wall. You echo back everything someone else says without any substantiation. That's not the way Wikipedia works. At the very least, you are in violation of WP:3RR and WP:AGF. At the worst, you are intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia with the intent of ruining its integrity.JB196 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::Discussion has been brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Please keep the discussion on one page. Discuss on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JB, why do you want to take credit for your edits? If anyone deserves credit, it's the sources that you got the info from. Read the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. You contribute to Wikipedia, you're basically releasing your work to public domain. I have created and expanded several articles myself, yet I know it's pointless to take credit for it as anyone could have found that info elsewhere. James Duggan 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I've given up on trying to obtain credit. That's beyond the issue now...we're past that man. bullet has gone ona campaign (literally) to try to ruin my reputation here on Wikipedia and that's something that I will not let happen.JB196 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::All I can see is that the bullet version is way more complete and better than your version. Can you give a good reason why your version of Vic Grimes is better than bullet's? If not, drop it. Fram 09:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We just can't get through to user JB196. He continues to revert the article, reducing its quality claiming that he is not credited as "The Author" in the article itself. The issue is being brought up here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:JB196] help would be greatly appreciated. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact JB your not reverting away your own work on the article your reverting away my edits and everyone else who contributed after you wrote the biography... infact i went through and rewrote most parts of your bio ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&diff=52697710&oldid=52685675 see edit history]) meaning if i was selfish and didnt uderstand wiki i could consider it my work and tell you, you have no right to remove it... do you not uderstand that after something is contributed on wiki it can no longer be claimed as a users work... the biography section stay and if you dont like it dont edit again --- Paulley

User:Weatherman5000 started this article, but all he did was copy and paste the Shad Gaspard article there. TJ Spyke 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:I deleted the info and redirected it to JTG, which is still a red link. --James Duggan 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::Somebody should create the article, all I know about him is that he wrestled in OVW. TJ Spyke 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Started, though it needs a major expanding (I don't even have info for a profile). I've asked for help from the OVW community on LiveJournal. --James Duggan 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having issues on the Layla El. I can not believe I have to bring this up anywhere but the talk page. TripleH1976 and I disagree on whether or not her SmackDown!debut should be added to the page. We argued (and reverted) to the point that we both got hit with 3RR warnings. I don't think it's worth dragging a Wiki Admin into it, but a few folk from here can weigh in on the talk page. - Bdve

Warriors of Wrestling was the AWF tv show that was in 95+96. The page here at Wikipedia is just a list of results: which is simply listcruft. I had a prod on it, but it was deleted by an editor because it's a TV show. But to put it simply...Wikipedia isn't a place to list wrestling results. Also results at the bottom of TNA Impact, should get a mass AFD. There is several pages of results for certain months for Impact. RobJ1981 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECW Born To Be Wired. I voted to keep them all, I think all ECW events are notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:So long as the articles are fleshed out enough to be encyclopedic. Reference the WWE and WCW pay-per-view articles to get a feel for the level of detail needed in a single-event article. Perhaps they should be pared down to the ones with significant events (Shane Douglas throwing down the NWA World Heavyweight Title, Raven's crucifixtion angle, etc.). For example, if Born to be Wired was the first time a world title was contested in a barbed-wire match (and I don't know if a world title was even contested at the show at all), then you have a context for significance. --EazieCheeze 14:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::Those 7 ECW events aren't notable, they are house shows with special names (none of the 7 are TV or PPV events). Just because an ECW event has a special name, doesn't make it notable enough. Look at all the WWE tours that have special names: not many (or any at all) are very notable. Special names aren't notable, period. RobJ1981 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::My mistake, I assumed they were PPV's. VegaDark 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::So, can we delete Ring of Honor and Chikara show pages too since they were not televised or broadcast on PPV?--Darren Jowalsen 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Can you post links to some so we can see? I would imagine most could be deleted, people tend to create a lot of fluff articles(like the list of every ROH title defense). ROH is a indy fed, so most of their events would not be notable. TJ Spyke 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ring_of_Honor_shows Here's a whole category]Darren Jowalsen and here's a Chikara one- Torneo Cibernetico. 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've put PROD tags up on some of the ROH shows, and the Torneo one should maybe be merged into List of professional wrestling match types since it seems to just describe a type of match. TJ Spyke 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not all of them? How can some be notable and some not if "ROH is just an indy fed" ? Is there nothing about that company that we CAN keep? Tromboneguy0186 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put prods on the other show articles and I'm tempted to be a real dick and put one on Tromboneguy0186 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::ROH is just an indy fed, but it's a big one. I didn't PROD ones that seemed to be importent(like the first ROH event and the one where the first ROH champion was crowned). TJ Spyke 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you have it both ways? Either ROH is important or it's not.

:::::::ROH is a well known indy fed, but that certainly doesn't mean every show is important. I think AFD should be put on pages instead of prods for the most part. Regular editors of pages usually just remove prods pretty quick, then it ends up going to AFD anyway. Also I think several of the shows listed here: :Category:Professional wrestling shows should be gone. A Night of Appreciation for Sabu and Professional wrestling tours of Australia are two examples. The Sabu show was used to raise funds for him, I don't see that being notable (as there has been many shows to help out wrestlers that need money for surgery or to pay bills or whatever: the shows simply aren't anything notable enough). As for Australia tours: it's a fancruft and listcruft of many Australia wrestling events: WCW, WWF/E, etc. Non-notable house shows. RobJ1981 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the litmus test? If a show is x, you'll allow it to stay, but if it's y, it must gooo?

:I think people have gotten derailed here, the original topic in question was non-notable ECW house shows with names. Now it's onto ROH shows with names. I agree most of the ROH shows should be deleted, however I am going against deleting one single one: Survival of the Fittest. SOTF falls under the same banner as the Ted Petty Invitational, the Battle of Los Angeles and the ECWA Super 8 Tournament in that they are all highly important independent wrestling tournaments. These are yearly events in indy wrestlers and they have a wide range of combatants and the winners move places in the indy world, and even to the majors. I'm going to bring up the same argument I brought up when we had the debate about wrestler article names - it's largely a case by case basis. Going all or nothing never helps anybody. –– Lid ^–(Talk) 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with wrestlers on shows like iMPACT! and SmackDown of people putting results before they air, especially when there's a title change involved. I was thinking we can start putting a warning like we do for week by week targets kinda like this:

That language may need to be cleaned up a little bit, but it would help having to erase something 100 times between Wednesday morning and Friday night. - Bdve 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• We already put those warnings on PPV shows and on the WWE page(saying not to post title changes before they air) and they don't seem to do much. Some people even go ahead and remove the warnings. TJ Spyke 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:You might want to bring this up on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning before deciding anything. There's a huge ongoing discussion on if spoiler warnings should even be on Wikipedia, and it is my understanding that right now only fictional events should have a warning, not real life things such as sporting events (even if taped prior to airing) VegaDark 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, these really aren't needed. Take a look at :Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television programs. There are Impact results for several months. These aren't really needed. If someone could mass AFD them, that would be helpful. Using prods probably wont work, people usually remove them. RobJ1981 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::I've nominated all the monthly results, the link is at the top of the page. TJ Spyke 05:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you created the article and put it up for prod to make a point, but don't think everyone is against you. I know my reply seems like I thought you didn't know what the SOTF is but it's to show some of us do care about the indies. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe I got a little carried away, but I don't see what the point is of deleting some of the ROH articles. If the company is to be dismissed as "just an indy" why does it matter when their first title match was, their first event out of Philly, etc... Tromboneguy0186 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::It just being an indy fed doesn't have anything to do with it. It's like how ECWA is just an indy fed but the Super 8 tournament they host is the biggest(and most well known) indy event. TJ Spyke 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Then why did you not prod ROH: Honor Invades Boston, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins, or ROH: Crowning a Champion ? Tromboneguy0186 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Because those individual events are not importent. I thought you understood that, the importence of the organization is not directly related to an event. A notable wrestling fed can have non-notable events. TJ Spyke 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you misunderstood - why did you NOT prod those ones? Tromboneguy0186 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Era of Honor Begins was the first ROH event, I suppose that's notable. Crowning a Champion marked the first ROH champion. I suppose Honor Invades Boston could go though. TJ Spyke 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, why does it matter when those things happened if individual events aren't important enough for articles? Oh, and if I understood, do you think I'd still be asking all these questions? ;) Tromboneguy0186 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I think it can be shown that some events are notable. I think even a casual fan or non-wrestling fan would agree that WrestleMania I was a notable event. It just remains for us to draw the line. For my part, I think any event that is well-known enough (or notorious enough) for a casual fan to want to know about is notable (after all, that's what an encyclopaedia is for, right?). Also, any well-known annual events and tournaments deserve their own article, though it may be debatable whether each yearly instance deserves its own article.Geoffg 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::Then would some events (marking similar milestones) from other indies be notable? My gut reaction would be "No, of course not, why would you ask such a dumb question?" but then why is that not the case of ROH if it is "just an indy" ? If, for example, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins is suitable for an article, how about FIP: Emergence or CZW: Opening Night ? Tromboneguy0186 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Personally, I don't think ROH is "just an indy". It is an indy, but it is the premiere indy in North America, and it features some of the most talented (and notable) wrestlers in North America. I think of ROH as the third most well-known promotion in North America, after WWE and TNA. I feel the notability of any of its events is related to that significance. I believe this is true for all promotions. Does WWE Backlash have an article because it is super important, or because WWE is very notable? I think that because WWE is very notable, an event like Backlash will be of interest to more people. Likewise, an indy promotion that is only marginally notable is very unlikely to have any notable events.Geoffg 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::AAA and CMLL regularly draw around 10,000 for regular tapings and 18,000 for big shows with TV on national broadcast television with various internataional and cable deals. I think they trump Ring of Honor.Darren Jowalsen 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I should have said "in the USA and Canada". I hadn't even considered Mexico. You are completely correct that AAA and CMLL are highly notable, non-indy promotions. They trump ROH for notability not only because of their high drawing power, but also history and television deals. Nevertheless, I feel ROH is highly notable.Geoffg 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)