Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestler's Court

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestler's Court

A backstage element of professional wrestling. While it appears to be verifiable, I don't think it is notable. A google search gets 180 hits [1]. This just isn't notable for WP. Tony fanta 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Kangaroo court. hateless 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google typically doesn't crawl book texts, yet the book is a perfectly acceptable source. --RoninBK_TCE# 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, so if any book that was ever published makes mention of any term, that it is automatically notable for an article? Something doesn't seem right about that. The google hits show that outside of a few pro wrestling boards, this term isn't used in the mainstream. Tony fanta 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the ones in "non-trivial published works." You agreed in your nom that the article is verifiable, so it would be contradictory to suggest that the book is otherwise. All I'm saying that a Search engine test is not intended as the sole proof against notability. The book, the Savage interview and the accounts in the Wicks, Toland, and Mailhot articles, (which admittedly could be added to the article,) provide for the basic test of "multiple, non-trivial published works." Remember, just because an article's scope is limited doesn't mean it can't be included in Wikipedia. Nobody's saying that Qubit Field Theory should be deleted because it's only notable to quantum physicists. --RoninBK_TCE# 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid argument. An element is quantum physics is far more notable than a little piece of a fringe topic like pro wrestling. That's all I need to say. Tony fanta 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But by your logic, the quantum physics article is less important, because it gets less Ghits (150) than this article. --RoninBK_ETC 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It could use a little cleaning up, but it is something in the US's largest wrestling promotion, and that establishes notability. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but I have no idea where it would go. Not kangaroo court though, that's about something else. Mister.Manticore 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This is an "inside" reference and not applicable to a general reader. Therefore, at most it should be discussed in the context of whichever wrastlin' endeavors hew to it. Otherwise, it would be on par with having entries on gaffer's closet or power broker cafeteria or something. Geogre 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. TJ Spyke 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn topic, just because a low-selling book mentions something does not gaurantee deservance of an article. Total fancruft. Cornerbock 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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.