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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling[edit]

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:LC. Completely inapproprtae considering the article List of deceased professional wrestlers was deleted. Just make a category of deceased pro wrestlers and it can serve the same purpose. This is also a considereable arguable title considering there's no clear definition on what an "Early Death" would be. — Moe 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add something about entertainers death's try Category:Entertainers by cause of death or something similar. Try to add as much as possible to existing categories. Creating categories for deceased/living people are deleted frequently. — Moe 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is we had past articles about this and it didn't fly with us before. — Moe 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comments. Second, there is a strong consensus against either listing or categorizing people on the basis of their being alive or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people which is maintained for legal reasons). Third, regardless of what age is selected it is an arbitary standard of inclusion. Finally, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (lists of Mario games or sexual positions) are not justification for this article. Otto4711 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is sign your frickin' posts, first of all. It's four keystrokes, it's not that difficult. And I'm saying that listing people on the basis of whether they are alive or dead is not done here. Otto4711 01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:*The problem I have with this article is that it (IMHO) gives the biased point of view impression that the Pro-wrestling business "causes early deaths". Its not balanced and rather unfair to the industry. It doesn't take much effort to selectively cherry pick a bunch of deceased wrestlers, put them in a list without any context whatsoever and call it "Early deaths in professional wrestling" - You might as well retitle this article "Pro wrestling causes early deaths", in which case it will be speedily deleted as a biased attack article. There is no context to this list, as I have stated in my comments above - a biased cherry picked list of dead people is simply not encyclopedic and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipeadia. I can selectively list early deaths in any number of professions (lawyers, doctors, policemen, insurance adjusters etc.) and give the false impression that n-profession causes short life-spans. --Eqdoktor 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a search for "People that committed suicide by gun" turns up no results. Otto4711 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The poltergeist argument is pretty solid. What if this article gets renamed "The wrestling curse"? Will you guys/gals finally get off my nuts at that point?Wfresch 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arguing for the retention of one shitty article based on the existence of another shitty article, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, is not too terribly impressive. Otto4711 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Noteworthy, controversial. This subject comes up in the press every time there's an 'untimely' death in the sport. At those times, people curious about the subject would surely find a categorized list like this useful and informative. At other times, the article will serve to educate those who are unaware that there's a controversy about the subject. Gooshy 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Its exactly lists like these that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. Its biased, unverified, does not cite any serious independent source links pro-wrestling to early deaths - its all self researched. Just how many basic Wikipedia encycopedic rules does this article break? People who are curious about about pro-wrestling and other subject matters can be better served than with a WP:POV biased and out-of-context list like this. Without context on each and every wrestler's death, this list is useless - just what can be inferred from bladder cancer deaths (John Tenta)? What of other pro-wrestlers that have retired and gone on (or will go on) to have higher than average median life expectancy lives? Even if the article originator is out to prove a connection between pro-wrestling and early deaths (nothing wrong with writing such an article - you just need to meet the Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NOR and WP:V), a list like this is laziest and the worst possible way to present such information.--Eqdoktor 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ha ha, right. It's lists like this that give wikipedia its shitty reputation. It couldn't be the anal photo rules, or the army of douche bags that nit-pick every new article. Eat a bowl of dicks, bro.

Comment.

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.
More