Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threat (Wrestler)

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat (Wrestler)

Threat (Wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete User:One Night In Hackney has no experience with pro-wrestling until tonight where he is obviously helping his buddies who tried to get my other pro-wrestling article deleted. Threat's Official News Site and SocalUncensored.com are both independent reliable sources as both have been around longer than Wikipedia and are both manned by experience pro-wrestling sports writers. Not only does Threat's Official News Site have news articles as a source, it also has photo and video coverage of the content included in the article as well. This nomination for deletion is a favor merely by someone who normally doesn't contribute to pro-wrestling articles to help everyone who flocked to Demonica Deadwater and even boasted on the AfD's talk page about specifically wanting to keep me around to get a reaction out of me. This nomination is veiled trolling. The article speaks for itself and is cited more than most pro-wrestler articles. I have no further statement.Kotterpin 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kotterpin (talk • contribs). — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Has multiple records and awards, was part of WWE and participated in televised match. This wrestler can't possibly be non-notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps you can find independent sources for any of the claims, and I don't mean his news site? An unsourced claim of notability is not a claim of notability. One Night In Hackney303 09:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No - he was never part of WWE, he auditioned for a WWE reality show (and didn't succeed - no sign of him in the programme's main article). EliminatorJR Talk 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources are made available, looks NN. EliminatorJR Talk 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mutltiple official articles (which are NOT independent as called for by WP:BIO) and an interview all fail WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS. DarkSaber2k 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Fails WP:A and every other policy I can think of. Burntsauce 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only references are from the wrestler's own site. Fanclubs for external links are fanclubs, myspace doesn't hold much, no notability beyond this. Being a pro wrestler isn't automatically notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Whatever You Want I dont' care anymore. I see why the people I know online told me to become a Wikithief or a vandal rather than try to participate by writing an article. I know, I know, this statement is somehow a Wiki-cliche and someone will post a link to an article detailing that to earn e-points with his fellow Wikipedophiles. If it gets deleted, I don't care. I don't see why anyone would want to be a Wikithief or a vandal anyways, associating with this nerd site is just asking for negative vibes. Goodbye. I was just someone who wanted to make some articles about a pro-wrestler I met on myspace. Nothing more, nothing less. I had no clue I'd have to deal with nazis with double standards. I don't see any WP:RS on many of the other wrestler's pages so I thought citing the official news site was better than that. Leave me alone and if you delete the articles, delete my account because people are now commenting my talk page with jerkoff wiki-cliche links. This place sucks. Leave me alone you are just attracting Wikitheives and vandals with proxy servers who told me not to write articles in the first place and are probably bookmarking all of your pages as I type this to have fun and use your name and likelyness in the process. Goodbye. Kotterpin 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin
    • How very mature of you. Burntsauce 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, it looks like the other stuff exists argument, coupled with calling all the editors here paedophiles. Classy. In any case, delete due to a total dearth of proper sourcing. --Haemo 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and good riddance to cliche vandals. RFerreira 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


  • I was told that the term Wikipedophile is seperate from child molesters and is the correct term for power-tripping Wikipedians, thank you. I'd like to direct the attention of whoever has the power to delete this article to Demonica Deadwater discussion and my response there. If any of these naysayers edit unsourced articles or have no experience in AfD discussions pertaining to independent pro-wrestling, then their opinions and Wiki-cliche rebuttals should be taken with a grain of salt because they shouldn't be here in the first place. Thanks. I'll be back next week to see if this article is the victim of hypocrisy. As for the Wikitheives, I am not a part of that and any admin who can view my IP address can easily see that. I am not into negativity but this experience with hypocrites was an eye-opener and I'm not going to be writing any more articles on this site. Kotterpin 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin
    • Perhaps then you should be referring to "wikipediaphiles"? A pedophile is entirely different, regardless of whether it's a "wikipedophile". be more selective in your verbiage please. BTW, I thought you were leaving? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 10:31, 8 May 2007 (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.