UPWA Pro Wrestling ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am a fan of UPWA along with many of my friends and family. I feel the page should be unlocked and re-instated. It is VERY notable in Wilmington and all of North Carolina. There are many pages on Wikipedia that I dont find notable but don't feel it is my place to say. We live in a free country so if nothing offensive was said, I dont understand why the page is not allowed to remain.

• Endorse AFD was unanimous and properly closed. I'll assume the moninator is sincere in their confusion as to why this was deleted and suggest that they check out WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ORG, and WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as unanimous delete consensus. To the nominator, the test of notability is not subjective (ie what you or I think is notable - everyone's views will differ); it is objective (normally whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources).-- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Unanimous decision based on properly completed AfD. -- Smashville ^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

We can verify it if we had known it to be an issue. We do not live on Wikipedia and when we got it reinstated once we found it was deleted. Then as we were verifying once again, it was deleted for no reason. We have been bringing it up to what was once stated but there are plenty of pages on here that are not notable and we are fans of said organization. You are not allowed to create a page for the sport we love? We can also prove plenty of coverage in various types of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Why not reopen it for discussion and allow me and my friends to speak our peace on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The discussion has already taken place. Also, you appear to be advocating meatpuppetry. -- Smashville ^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Straightforward endorse. If you want to recreate it, show us a sourced draft. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have links to articles printed in the newspaper on the promotion. I also have links to various press clippings about the promotion. When a discussion happens very quickly, is that really a discussion? I would love to show a sourced draft but I am unable to recreate the page due to admin locks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The discussion took 7 days. It was followed to the letter of the process. -- Smashville ^talk 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Also, please do not recreate the page during this discussion. -- Smashville ^talk 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Unlike most people here, I have something called a real life. I dont live on wikipedia so I dont see how that can be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse That closure was strictly by the book. Please, please read the policy on reliable sourcing, as neither the original article nor this review have produced any sources- reliable or not. Also, discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, so having a bunch of your friends come and speak your peace would matter little without sound reasons based in policy to keep the article. A userspace draft is the best way forward in this situation. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have stated the article is notable as it has been featured on local television and newspaper reports. I guess that isnt notable for the nerd herd. As long as its some stupid ass babylon 5 site or some bullshit its ok but something peopkle actually like, then its not allowed. Obviously it is a vote if six people who have nothing better to do decide what happens with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, no evidence of notability. Note that User:Superfan4life has been blocked for repeatedly recreating the article, as has the sockpuppet account User:DaSuperstar. NawlinWiki ( talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Lauren Bernat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While there is somewhat an issue with the "famous for one thing", I think that she this one thing has become significant enough to be more than JUST one thing - it has led to many offshoot videos, including two made by models for Zoo Today and Playboy, led to her getting a job as an Electronic Arts spokesperson for a competing product, which tells us that EA thinks that she is famous enough to have her be a face for it, even including her in a fitness challenge along with famous fitness celebrity Jillian Michaels, an event hosted by Oprah Winfrey's personal trainer. In Wii Fit Girl [gotta view history], the article I created, it shows that not only does the notability of her li'l YouTube video branch out from just being a popular YouTube video, but the video in and of itself is very notable. It's been covered worldwide, and it's not like the coverage was all around the posting of the video, it's been steadily flowing since then [even getting listed as one of the most memorable video game moments of the decade by GamesRadar]. I propose that it satisfies all guideline problems found with the original article, and if not given an article, much content that is clearly significant will be reduced to a single sentence that does not even remotely cover enough of the content. I guess redirecting wouldn't be so bad if the list it redirects to doesn't allow for proper expansion, because as it stands, it treats all redirected subjects as equal in notability by setting it up like this. But that's neither here nor there. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • In a case like this that was unanimous to delete it is usual to provide a draft to consider. Absent that I can hardly fault the closing admin for going with the flow. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, nomination gives no rationale for concluding that the AfD was closed incorrectly given the discussion. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was a clear and unanimous consensus to delete.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Well, would it be possible for it to be temporary undeleted to have a second AfD? THat is, I'm arguing that if the article were in its current state, the verdict would, at the very least, be anything but clear or unanimous. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, AFD was unanimous, and as several commenters pointed out this is basically the classic example of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, AfD was clear. If you want to recreate it, produce a draft showing how BLP1E no longer applies (or never applied) and come back here. Essentially per Spartaz. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Seems to be a recreation review, not an appeal of the AfD. New Age Retro Hippie provided a draft: [1]. Flatscan ( talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm normally a big fan of bringing new drafts to DRV, but in this case the main problem is nothing a draft can fix: the topic is the BLP1Eest BLP1E that ever BLP1Eed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • And I have to agree. I'm not seeing the second event here. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • No way is that going to pass muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Assuming this one carries on in the current direction -- what to do about the redirect? I'm not familiar with policy on redirects, but I don't see the case for one here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Huge endorse. That said, as long as she's in the list, there is no good reason not to have the redirect. Hobit ( talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The list doesn't allow for enough room to explain why it took off, or what it led to. If I trimmed it down and added extra content like reception, it would be reverted as undue weight, since everything else is a single sentence of content. It'd be another story if the redirect target allowed for any expansion whatsoever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I understand. That said, our policies are that such an article shouldn't exist (per AfD, BLP1E). The list entry is reasonable in my opinion (though there is a style guideline opposes disagrees about black links in BLP lists). But no matter what, if the topic is in the list, we should have the redirect. As to the issue you raise, the best you can probably do is get stuff into the list article via references. 4-5 references in this case is probably okay in the list. Hobit ( talk) 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I think it's worth noting that the list mostly works the other way around: it has links to articles, not redirects pointing to the list. The list contains entries deemed worthy of an article. The redirect is harmless enough, but perhaps it raises the question of whether she should be included in the list. (yes, it could be discussed there...) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I think I followed that. This list does have a lot of blue links, but "Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." If the person is on the list, WP:REDIRECT would indicate that we should have a redirect to the list. Hobit ( talk) 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
          • FYI, I'm not intending for the whole "list problem" to try and keep the article under those circumstances, just saying that it'd be more acceptable if the list were set up to allow mention of why it became popular and what it has resulted in. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The presence or absence of a redirect depends on the content at List of Internet phenomena which is best discussed at its talk page not at this DRV. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply