Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestling aerial techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Keep ~ Anthøny 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling aerial techniques

[edit]
Professional wrestling aerial techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Previous AfD which clearly demonstrated that arm waving can overrule policy. Four months later, and the article still fails policy. There is now one reference which somehow (and don't ask me how) verifies A handstand variation can also be used. With the opponent seated on the top turnbuckle facing the ring, the wrestler performs a handstand on the bottom turnbuckle, wrapping their shins or feet around the neck of the opponent. They then bend their legs forward towards the ring, pulling the opponent over and flipping them down to the mat onto their back with a description of Trish less than gently escorted Melina down from the top rope by means of the StratusFear. The entire article is composed of first hand interpretation of primary sources by editors, thus making it original research, as these interpretations have not been published by a reliable secondary source. Fails WP:OR and WP:V, delete. One Night In Hackney303 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced OR listcruft. And I'm a pro wrestling fan. --Finngall talk 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced OR listcruft, and I'm not a pro wrestling fan. This list has no encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:IAR. List is important to help people who are not familiar with wrestling understand the jargon when reading an article. Theophilus75 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Theophilus75. Useful guide to terms commonly used in articles about wrestlers (who have pages here) and their signature moves. JJL 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:USEFUL is an essay, neither policy nor guideline. –– Lid(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page under discussion is useful in that it explains jargon used in other WP articles, which is different from just being generally useful. If this stuff wasn't placed in one spot then much of it would have to be distributed to other articles. JJL 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Theophilus75 and JJL. And just because it doesn't currently contain references doesn't mean that it can not contain references. FlamingSpear 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable, and sources can easily be implemented. No need for deletion whatsoever. MarcK 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would welcome your help in doing just that instead of putting it up for Afd. Theophilus75 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a synthesis of WP:OR and fails WP:RS. SirFozzie 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This has been put up for deletion before, and has stayed, and is very crucial wrestling information. Kris 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:USEFUL is an essay, neither policy nor guideline. –– Lid(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if this article is deleted every single wrestling articles movelist will be complete nonsense. The RS argument has previously been put down as the source is the primary sources of the wrestling shows as well, which was shown does not demonstrate OR in the previous AfD itself. –– Lid(Talk) 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid policy explicity states this is original research, specifically Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source and This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians. One Night In Hackney303 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment however the opening line of the policy states "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" and the policy continues to refer to that throughout. There is no position being put forward here. –– Lid(Talk) 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The policy is quite clear, I suggest you read the "This page in a nutshell" header for further clarification. Rather than wikilawyering that this article is not original research, your efforts would be better employed adding reliable secondary sources to the article, and the others which will be similarly affected in the near future. One Night In Hackney303 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have read the nutshell, and all I can think back to was the example of the last afd on the article Punch (strike). "In fighting and martial arts, a punch is a strike made using the hand closed into a fist. Punches vary in technique, speed, and range." being the main part of it. Everyone knows what a punch is and how it works, however that description would be under the usage of OR fall under original research. WP:OR was created with essays in mind, it was not created with the forethought of an article of movements of the human body. Calling this original research is the same as calling walking original research. In the nut shell the third part doesn't apply as this is not pushing any agenda, the second applies but as I have put forward is made redundant by the actions themselves and the impossibility of a secondary source existing (the commentators name the move, then someone reports the name of the move the commentators gave it. It's impossible forthe secondary report to be a secondary source because the primary source is for something that is entirely devoid of any agenda). This leaves us with the first part, that wikipedia is not for the publishing of original thought - there is no original thought here, there is just explanations of movements. I point back to punch and walking for the same reasons, if these are original thought then being physically able to type this reply constitutes original thought and not the fact I'm able to use my fingers. –– Lid(Talk) 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just needs sourcing. Koberulz 09:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above, (please don't remove my vote.) Govvy 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs more sources, but as ONIH is well aware the Project are going through articles sourcing them, it is hard keeping up with those who seem intent on blanking or deleting every single wrestling article, it is a lot easier to delete than source. Darrenhusted 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing appears to be coming along, with the nominator's help. Maxamegalon2000 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Actually it isn't, as an examination of the sources being added shows.
  • Diving headbutt - I see no reference at all here.
  • Dragonrana - In this variant of the diving hurricanrana, the wrestler first performs a front flip from the top rope before executing a true hurricanrana in to a pin is not referenced by Forward flip from the top post into Huracanrana.
  • Iconoclasm - This top rope flipping slam sees a wrestler stand under an opponent, who is situated on the top turnbuckle, turn his/her back to this opponent while taking hold of the opponent's arms from below, often holding under at the opponent's arm pits. The wrestler would then throw the opponent forward while falling to a seated position, flipping the opponent over in midair, and slamming them down to the mat back first. is not referenced by Flipping slam from the corner. Has a cross arm version called the Goriconoslasm.
  • As for the other source, that's just an unreliable wrestling fan site which does not meet WP:RS and has previously been removed as a source on more than one occasion. One Night In Hackney303 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly the is no pleasing you, you ask for references, as if they can be conjured from the ether, then when some are provided they aren't good enough. You are fully aware the project is trying to keep up with the sourcing asked of it and yet still choose to AfD every wrestling article going, without allowing time for them to be worked on, and yet you still fail to understand the central importance of this article. Every PW:WP bio refers to the moveset articles, without them the whole of the PW pages will have to be re-written, and re-referenced. If this AfD succeeds are you going to be the one to rewrite every article ONIH? Darrenhusted 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hardly my fault members of the project chose to create entire articles using original research is it? This article was nominated for deletion before as it says right at the top, and four months later there is no improvement. I'm pointing out that the references do not source the information in the article, which is a valid point and needs to be made. One Night In Hackney303 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You still have not addressed the fact that this is a core article referenced by nearly every single wrestler article on all of wikipedia and its removal would be detrimental to wikipedia as a whole. Let's hypothesise the article gets deleted, what is a shooting star press? What is a moonsault? What is a 450 splash? What is a diving bulldog? This article is core to wrestling wikipedia articles, as well as the other move articles, and removing it would render wrestling articles non-readable to someone who doesn't follow wrestling or have a move for move encyclopedia knowledge of wrestling terminology. –– Lid(Talk) 12:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arguing that it is a core article does not change the fact it is original research. One Night In Hackney303 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But my arguments against the impossibility of anything relating to human movement being anything but primary research is. The fact it would cause massive disruption if it were to be deleted is just another problem. –– Lid(Talk) 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A mass nomination was tried last time and wasn't the best of ideas. So this time one article was nominated, and the rest will follow. One Night In Hackney303 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for clarifying your intentions! Theophilus75 19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I'm in the midst of trying to find sources Nikki311 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, One Night in Hackney, why don't you help us source the articles, hey? Daviiid 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. It disturbs me greatly that there was so much vote stacking from WP:PW early on in this "discussion", but the article is beginning to take a different shape. There is still much original research that needs to receive some attention from the wiki-scalpel. Burntsauce 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to disturb you BS, maybe you would like to assist in sourcing the article with ONIH? Darrenhusted 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sourcing is the responsiblity of the people wishing to retain the article, not those wishing to see it deleted. Perhaps instead of badgering people who !vote to delete, you'd like to source it yourself? One Night In Hackney303 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You seem to have so much time on your hands, why don't you try sourcing for a change. Govvy 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd take the wiki-scapel over deletion anyday. At least then we could add information back as we source it, and the info that already has sources could stay. Nikki311 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a pro wrestling fan, but sadly, I have to agree with the nomination. There really aren't any sources for these. Elrith 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above DXRAW 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've never seen a movie or novel's page nominated for deletion because the plot summary was "unsourced." PenguinJockey 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And please check the article again. It currently has 17 references. This article has been regularly edited (mostly constructively) since it was created in 2004. It is currently being maintained by a very active Wikiproject and there are literally hundreds of incoming links. This would leave a very large hole in Wikipedia if it were deleted. The concerns raised by Lid are also worrisome. If this is still original research then it is still an excellent reason for keeping under WP:IAR for the good of the overall project. Paxse 17:29, 24 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_wrestling_aerial_techniques&oldid=1136469907"