The result of the debate was Deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Many are concerned that this is a vanity article that doesn't meet WP:WEB; hopefully we can settle this here. William Pietri 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
<<<Mainstream celebrities such as Ron Jeremy and Verne Langdon have endorsed it. To say that it is not notable is entirely ignoring that fact. It has also been unofficially endorsed by pro wrestler Chris Hamrick. Wrestling superstars such as Shane Douglas, Jerry Lynn, Chris Hamrick, and Missy Hyatt have done exclusive interviews for it. Adult film stars Kristi Myst and Lizzy Borden also read the retrospective. Verne Langdon has unofficially endorsed it, and Kevin Kleinrock (the former VICE PRESIDENT of XPW) has officially endorsed it.
<<<It is PRINTED on sites which Wikipedia considers "Verifiable." The information printed in the retrospective comes from people who were in XPW. None of that specific information is published here; All it is saying is that the information is published in the RETROSPECTIVE. So the argument that there should be a "Verifiability" tag on the article is not a fair assessment.
<<<ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the web sites that the articles are printed on - was featured in Harley Race's autobiography and has also gotten other coverage. At WP:WEB it says The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The OWW site is definitely "well known" and has received mainstream coverage as mentioned above. So I would think it meets that WP:WEB guideline. If OWW is not notable, then over 100 wrestler profiles should be edited on Wikipedia because htey include OWW.com as a reference. JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem I have with the article is that it clearly refers to something that does not exist. It is an article about someone intending to write and publish a book rather than a page about a published book. An article about someone intending to write a book seems like vanity to me. Minus the book, this is an article about a collection of short pieces written for the web and posted on a few websites. That would seem to fail the test 168.127.0.51 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.
The result of the debate was Deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Many are concerned that this is a vanity article that doesn't meet WP:WEB; hopefully we can settle this here. William Pietri 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
<<<Mainstream celebrities such as Ron Jeremy and Verne Langdon have endorsed it. To say that it is not notable is entirely ignoring that fact. It has also been unofficially endorsed by pro wrestler Chris Hamrick. Wrestling superstars such as Shane Douglas, Jerry Lynn, Chris Hamrick, and Missy Hyatt have done exclusive interviews for it. Adult film stars Kristi Myst and Lizzy Borden also read the retrospective. Verne Langdon has unofficially endorsed it, and Kevin Kleinrock (the former VICE PRESIDENT of XPW) has officially endorsed it.
<<<It is PRINTED on sites which Wikipedia considers "Verifiable." The information printed in the retrospective comes from people who were in XPW. None of that specific information is published here; All it is saying is that the information is published in the RETROSPECTIVE. So the argument that there should be a "Verifiability" tag on the article is not a fair assessment.
<<<ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the web sites that the articles are printed on - was featured in Harley Race's autobiography and has also gotten other coverage. At WP:WEB it says The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The OWW site is definitely "well known" and has received mainstream coverage as mentioned above. So I would think it meets that WP:WEB guideline. If OWW is not notable, then over 100 wrestler profiles should be edited on Wikipedia because htey include OWW.com as a reference. JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem I have with the article is that it clearly refers to something that does not exist. It is an article about someone intending to write and publish a book rather than a page about a published book. An article about someone intending to write a book seems like vanity to me. Minus the book, this is an article about a collection of short pieces written for the web and posted on a few websites. That would seem to fail the test 168.127.0.51 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.