![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it worth mentioning anything about the annual April Fools' Joke that appears, e.g.: last years about selling the site? Essexmutant 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the songs are called that they use on the podcast? --- Silent RAGE! 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
RD specified on this past Friday's WCR that it's spelled "fax-trolla".
Please remind me how this site is notable and meets WP:WEB.
Also, it's incoming links from mainspace (excluding redirects but including links to any incoming redirects) number 5: two of which are trivial entries about April Fools gags (from April 1, 2004 and April 1, 2005) and one of which is the site founder. So, we're down to 2 incoming links of any value whatsoever.
I very much question the notability of this site, and suggest a merger or deletion. -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already been discussed several times and is quite notable. Just because it's not notable to you, doesn't mean that thousands of other people aren't aware of the site. DX927 ( talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tried to insert the winner of the 2007 Gooker award, but this appears to be a high-level block! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitney Beers ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The award may not yet have been awarded, but the voting has indeed started. It would appear you are somewhat behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.129.53 ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The winner has been announced - it's Hornswoggle as Vince McMahon's son. Steveweiser ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Before I add the request edit template is everyone fine with a line like:
-- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but why in the heck is this page so protected that I, a member of almost 3 years, cant' edit it? Why this much protection?-- Bedford 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
http://wrestlecrap.blogspot.com/ WrestleCrap Recap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 ( talk) 05:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't ya add it to the article then, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.145.136 ( talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 ( talk) 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.fightingspiritmagazine.co.uk/current.asp
scroll down to the "Star columnists" bit. I would have added myself but am not sure on proper wiki policy relating to this. Dr Rgne ( talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The article makes it look as though Vincent is still alive and well, and currently contributing to wrestlecrap, when in fact he has passed away. The words "the late" therefore do in fact need to be included. 41.245.185.54 ( talk) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone doesn't read the entire article, but rather skims over, they may very well get the impression that he is still alive, as the opening paragraph states simply "Merle Vincent" and gives the clear impression that he is indeed alive and well. It is only if one reads deeper that one discovers that he is in fact dead. Also, what kind of excuse is it for changing an article/removing content because someone has a personal dislike for the way it is phrased? 41.245.172.87 ( talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
But it's not exactly "compromising" to just let some guy change facts just because he doesn't like them the way they are. The only real reason for removing "the late" is because one or two people say "I don't like having the words 'the late' in the lead paragraph". It's very sad but yes Merle Vincent is dead. Therefore he is the late Merle Vincent. I wish he was still around too, but sadly he's not. Could someone please give an encyclopedic reason, not some personal viewpoint, why the term "the late" should not be included in the lead paragraph? Is it the specific phrasing or the fact that it mentions his death at all? Would something similar to the lead paragraph of the RD Reynolds be acceptable to these people? 41.245.172.87 ( talk) 06:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to read like kayfabe. Unfortunately as the article is locked, only established users can edit/revert etc. hat do others think of this new addition/inclusion? 41.245.171.28 ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody, I think User:GaryColemanFan brought this up on the wrestling project page. It does seem a bit excessive, but better to first discuss it rationally, and then act appropriately. K'Anpo ( talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
See the article is locked. I were thinking that perhaps a few lines need to be added about how many people have deserted WC since Triple Kelly became the Head Inducter as it were. Maxx Mountain Rock ( talk) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I read the previous deletion attempt and all the keep votes were based on fan site hype. Wikipedia isn't a list of fan sites and other sites like this have been deleted.
One such site that was deleted has twice the alexa page rank as wrestlecrap and serves a global audience on a wide range of subjects.
Is there any reason this website has a wiki page considering pro wrestlers have had their pages deleted/questioned. With that said im not sure why there is a [R._D._Reynolds] page either but im curious to hear anything on either. Woods01 ( talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't see why there needs to be both a RD Reynolds page AND a WrestleCrap page. I think he/it/they is/are notable enough to have one article detailing WrestleCrap, its contributors etc. I actually think there SHOULD be a WrestleCrap page, but NOT a separate RD Reynolds page. The RD Reynolds page should be redirected to this article, and there should be a paragraph or two talking about him on THIS article. Spoke shook ( talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How would one go about suggesting that either this article or the RD Reynolds article be deleted, or, my preference, they be merged into a single article? The one fellow who states that "it's definitely notable" and that it "would be a waste of time" will obviously oppose such an action, but the guy who started this, as well as WillC would likely agree. There seem to be different ideas however:
1)Delete both WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds as its "based on fan site hype"
2)Keep both pages, as "it's definitely notable"
3)Merge them(my preference)
Any other thoughts? Spoke shook ( talk) 09:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
They both should go since other sites like this that have had larger audiences have been deleted. For a fan site to be seen as notable one would assume general wrestling fans would be aware of it. I followed wrestling for several years and never heard of this site or the people behind it.
Since this was nominated once and the decision was to keep it would probably be kept again if re-nominated. Woods01 ( talk) 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it worth mentioning anything about the annual April Fools' Joke that appears, e.g.: last years about selling the site? Essexmutant 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the songs are called that they use on the podcast? --- Silent RAGE! 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
RD specified on this past Friday's WCR that it's spelled "fax-trolla".
Please remind me how this site is notable and meets WP:WEB.
Also, it's incoming links from mainspace (excluding redirects but including links to any incoming redirects) number 5: two of which are trivial entries about April Fools gags (from April 1, 2004 and April 1, 2005) and one of which is the site founder. So, we're down to 2 incoming links of any value whatsoever.
I very much question the notability of this site, and suggest a merger or deletion. -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already been discussed several times and is quite notable. Just because it's not notable to you, doesn't mean that thousands of other people aren't aware of the site. DX927 ( talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tried to insert the winner of the 2007 Gooker award, but this appears to be a high-level block! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitney Beers ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The award may not yet have been awarded, but the voting has indeed started. It would appear you are somewhat behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.129.53 ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The winner has been announced - it's Hornswoggle as Vince McMahon's son. Steveweiser ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Before I add the request edit template is everyone fine with a line like:
-- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but why in the heck is this page so protected that I, a member of almost 3 years, cant' edit it? Why this much protection?-- Bedford 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
http://wrestlecrap.blogspot.com/ WrestleCrap Recap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 ( talk) 05:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't ya add it to the article then, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.145.136 ( talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 ( talk) 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.fightingspiritmagazine.co.uk/current.asp
scroll down to the "Star columnists" bit. I would have added myself but am not sure on proper wiki policy relating to this. Dr Rgne ( talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The article makes it look as though Vincent is still alive and well, and currently contributing to wrestlecrap, when in fact he has passed away. The words "the late" therefore do in fact need to be included. 41.245.185.54 ( talk) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone doesn't read the entire article, but rather skims over, they may very well get the impression that he is still alive, as the opening paragraph states simply "Merle Vincent" and gives the clear impression that he is indeed alive and well. It is only if one reads deeper that one discovers that he is in fact dead. Also, what kind of excuse is it for changing an article/removing content because someone has a personal dislike for the way it is phrased? 41.245.172.87 ( talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
But it's not exactly "compromising" to just let some guy change facts just because he doesn't like them the way they are. The only real reason for removing "the late" is because one or two people say "I don't like having the words 'the late' in the lead paragraph". It's very sad but yes Merle Vincent is dead. Therefore he is the late Merle Vincent. I wish he was still around too, but sadly he's not. Could someone please give an encyclopedic reason, not some personal viewpoint, why the term "the late" should not be included in the lead paragraph? Is it the specific phrasing or the fact that it mentions his death at all? Would something similar to the lead paragraph of the RD Reynolds be acceptable to these people? 41.245.172.87 ( talk) 06:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to read like kayfabe. Unfortunately as the article is locked, only established users can edit/revert etc. hat do others think of this new addition/inclusion? 41.245.171.28 ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody, I think User:GaryColemanFan brought this up on the wrestling project page. It does seem a bit excessive, but better to first discuss it rationally, and then act appropriately. K'Anpo ( talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
See the article is locked. I were thinking that perhaps a few lines need to be added about how many people have deserted WC since Triple Kelly became the Head Inducter as it were. Maxx Mountain Rock ( talk) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I read the previous deletion attempt and all the keep votes were based on fan site hype. Wikipedia isn't a list of fan sites and other sites like this have been deleted.
One such site that was deleted has twice the alexa page rank as wrestlecrap and serves a global audience on a wide range of subjects.
Is there any reason this website has a wiki page considering pro wrestlers have had their pages deleted/questioned. With that said im not sure why there is a [R._D._Reynolds] page either but im curious to hear anything on either. Woods01 ( talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't see why there needs to be both a RD Reynolds page AND a WrestleCrap page. I think he/it/they is/are notable enough to have one article detailing WrestleCrap, its contributors etc. I actually think there SHOULD be a WrestleCrap page, but NOT a separate RD Reynolds page. The RD Reynolds page should be redirected to this article, and there should be a paragraph or two talking about him on THIS article. Spoke shook ( talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How would one go about suggesting that either this article or the RD Reynolds article be deleted, or, my preference, they be merged into a single article? The one fellow who states that "it's definitely notable" and that it "would be a waste of time" will obviously oppose such an action, but the guy who started this, as well as WillC would likely agree. There seem to be different ideas however:
1)Delete both WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds as its "based on fan site hype"
2)Keep both pages, as "it's definitely notable"
3)Merge them(my preference)
Any other thoughts? Spoke shook ( talk) 09:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
They both should go since other sites like this that have had larger audiences have been deleted. For a fan site to be seen as notable one would assume general wrestling fans would be aware of it. I followed wrestling for several years and never heard of this site or the people behind it.
Since this was nominated once and the decision was to keep it would probably be kept again if re-nominated. Woods01 ( talk) 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)