Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Wrestling Alliance

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Wrestling Alliance

More fantasy roleplaying wrestling. No more notable than a fantasy football league. See also Extreme Measures Federation. Rick K 08:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair -- Even if you're ambivalent or simply not a fan, that should not be enough of a reason to delete the entry. That's like me voting to have Infinity or Entercom's entries deleted because I work for Clear Channel, or I want bird watching taken out because it doesn't interest me. jrgnyr

Until there's an informative article on "Fantasy wrestling" that persuades me otherwise, this seems extraordinarily trivial stuff, written up in a somewhat breathless style that has a presumably unintended comedic value. So, what is "fantasy wrestling"? Google led me to this, which suggests to me it's a bit like betting on wrestling ... but without actually betting. So it's merely like a glorified pub conversation or similar. If I'm wrong, please write Fantasy wrestling to enlighten me. In the meantime, delete. (Yes, I'm watching this page, and I may revise my vote.) -- Hoary 09:41, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- Well well, the red link for Fantasy wrestling has now turned blue. I learn that my previous picture of FW was wrong, but precious little else. How can you roleplay wrestling? -- Hoary 02:07, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Delete. Fantasy football gets television programmes and newspaper article, fantasy cricket gets major newspapers running it, fantasy wrestling... well, as far as I know it doesn't. So if writing an article on fantasy wrestling is a complete waste of time that would fail to prove significance or inflence, what is writing one on one minor group that does fantasy wrestling? Average Earthman 10:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:30, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Keep. The page is in horrible shape now, and is of questionable notability, but in the interest of eventualism, I propose to give it a chance to improve. I added a cleanup tag to the article, and if the page survives the deletion vote I intend to list it at Cleanup under Hobbies. I am watching it as well, and if it does not improve with time, then I would support deletion. EvilPhoenix
- By extension, every single fantasy football or baseball league in existence should have their own article. There are tens of thousands of them on Yahoo! alone. Rick K 19:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. RickK is of course correct. Quale 23:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again agree with RickK. Mcfly85 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fantasy wrestling has its own category (so i added it on there)... im sure someone will pick it up and have it looking ship shape in no time. -- Paulley 22:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity / non-encyclo. R adiant _* 13:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Delete --130.232.129.242 09:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.