Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

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 of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like, this looks like a delete. Ian13/talk 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Last I heard or checked the site gets nearly 10 million hits a month, this is no small discussion form and since the days of Scott Keith, TSM has become a name most any wrestling fan has come to know, whether they visit it or not.

KEEP - IT MAKES ME LAUFF AND THAT CZECH NIGGAH BE COOL BUT HE HATES RAP AND DAT AIN'T COOL BUT HE STILL COOL 71.108.35.14 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Mole[reply]

The website has not established notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). As it stands, it appears to be little more than an advertisment. McPhail 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The forum gets more hits than anything else. Most don't even bother reading the articles at the website. Voice of Treason 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep directly evolved from web sites such as Smarks, Rantsylvania, and 411mania which were integral to the devlopment of the Internet Wrestling Community. Has been around since 2001 which makes it one of the longest lasting pro wrestling message boards on the Internet. Plus, it has branched out recently (as mentioned) into the poker business.JB196 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't need a Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrrant (talk • contribs) .

• Keep As mentioned, it is one of the longest-running wrestling sites in its various incarnations, and has a very colorful history featuring such IWC luminaries as Sean Shannon, Scott Keith, and others. If other IWC sites have pages, then TSM certainly should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.200.128 (talk • contribs) .
• Doesn't meet WP:WEB. 81,128 Alexa ranking. --Rory096 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Death Valley Driver Video Review meets the requirements to remain on Wikipedia, than The Smart Marks should as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kernoodle (talk • contribs) .
• Keep It rocks, IIRC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.183.10 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete It doesn't need an entry. It would only be of interest to those already familiar with the forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.172.74 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete WP:WEB isn't perfect, but even beyond that it doesn't merit an entry. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To say that this article doesn't merit an entry does not achknowledge the fact that Scott Keith was an integral part of the development of TSM, and that TSM was an integral part in the development of Scott Keith. Scott Keith has an entry on him on Wikipedia which has never been contested over afD...there is a reason for this...the reason is this...he was important to the development of the Internet Wrestling Community. As was TSM. As such, the entry for TSM should be kept if the entry for Scott Keith is kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JB196 (talk • contribs) .
  • Just because someone notable is involved in something doesn't mean that it's notable. Anyway, the article on Scott Keith doesn't even mention this website... --Rory096 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • TSM evolved from TheSmarks.com, which is mentioned in Keith's entry.JB196 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JB196 is trying to get the entry for DVDVR deleted because it is a competitor to TheSmarks. If you want to play this game, so will I. TruthCrusader 08:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that TrushCrusader has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF many times in the past. He is also not being truthful in saying that "[[DVDR] is a competitor to TheSmarks. As admitted by him a few lines, he - right or wrong - has a grudge against me and therefore is not a credible voter in this situation. Thanks.JB196 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fortunately for Wikipedia, who can vote is not determined by you. TruthCrusader 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fortunately for Wikipedia this is not a vote! I count eight legitimate, opinionated discussion posts by registered users. Yours, TruthCrusader, is clearly not in good faith and provides no real reasoning.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the website is non-notable. And for those arguing over DVDVR being here, the article has only survived afd twice through No Consensus. Either way, I would have voted delete for that article as well for being just as notable. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see main article. There is enough criterion to differentiate it from other Internet Wrestling Community web sites. It played a major role in the development of the Internet Wrestling Community and to this day is one of the most frequented web sites in the Internet Wrestling Community. If web sites such as DVDR are listed, then this should definitely be listed. There are NO other wrestling forums that have gained as much of a cult following as TSM and crossed over to mainstream as much as it has. They became so well known that they had to close signups for a long time because there were so many people signing up who were not living up to the expected standard---whatever that be (and actually signups still may be closed for all I know). Anyway, the subject of this entry is totally notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.203.233 (talk • contribs)

• Delete, this is not something that wiki needs. It is a boring entry for a rather boring website. Seeing this kind of stuff at wiki almost gives people the message that anything they find remotely interesting is worth putting up at wiki. That should not be the case. Especially for something like a website that barely exists and whose claim to fame, if it ever had one to begin with, was years ago. Matthew Jones, unregistered contributor 11:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This website isn't notable by the usual WP:WEB standards, but within the community it serves might be notable. The question then becomes whether individual sites within a notable online community are notable based on their association with the community. I would say not per Rory's comment above about association not transferring notability. This has interesting parallels to the discussion about the MetaWiki article below.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a good question. I'd have to say that since Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, than notability within a community does not mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. That's a whole other debate though. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as it stands, virtually every "keep" vote is either insisting that the website is one of the most popular wrestling websites (no proof has been offered for this claim, though) or by arguing that the website deserves an article if the "Death Valley Driver Video Review" website deserves an article. This is not a reasonable argument, as the Death Valley Driver Video Review article has been nominated for deletion three times to date due to a lack of notability. Wikipedia should not be a staging ground for a series of juvenile "forum wars". McPhail 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its Alexa ranking is 85,000 which is way more than RajahWWF.com. If that's not a reasonable argument then neither is that "its a boring entry for a rather boring web site." Tons of proof has been offered about its notability, including that it was one of the leaders of the Internet Wrestling Community boom; the only problem is that many people such as you are unwilling to achknowledge the arguments that have been fully established for it to stay.JB196 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But 85,000 is far, far higher than 411mania (25,777), wrestlingobserver.com (26,543) and pwtorch.com (21,819). The website in question is clearly not one of the more popular wrestling websites on the Internet, as there are similar websites with 60,000 more visitors. Moreover, the (dubious) argument that the website was central to the development of the Internet wrestling community is of little merit, as that article has also been proposed for deletion in the past. The same is true of your above claim that Scott Keith has an article, so the article should remain - the Scott Keith article has also been proposed for deletion in the past. This website is in no sense notable, and the fact that it influenced or was frequented by similar pseudo-notable article subjects should not save it from being deleted. McPhail 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely invalid. There is a very good reason why there is a deletion process here on Wikipedia. If there were'nt, anybody could just delete an entry they didn't like, but because there is a process, the deletion must be approved in advance. Your argument relies on the assumption that just because an article was proposed for deletion in the past, it isn't notable, which is ridiculous.JB196 19:50, 17 June 2006 (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.