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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:59Z

Plane Ride From Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

rumored wrestling event with interest only to wrestling fans. I'm not sure if it happened, but it does not deserve it's own article, either way. Booshakla 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete Hardly sounds interesting, even if real, and a Google search turns up no meaningful results. Heimstern Läufer 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Depends what search terms you use. Add WWF to it and you get a number of sources: [1] It's also covered in Scott Keith's book "Wrestling's one-ring circus". Given the breadth of sources, I'd say it's fine as far as references are concerned, but I still don't think it's notable and important enough to have its own article (see my comments further down). --Dave. 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Scott Keith a reliable source, especially considering the numerous factual inaccuracies in his first book. The problem with the sources is that none of them really say the same thing. For example PWBTS reports The Torch stated Curt Hennig started the fight, while 1Wrestling reports that Jerry Lawler stated Curt Hennig didn't start the fight. There are too many conflicting and unconfirmed reports about what happened, and I don't believe rumours and speculation are appropriate. For that reason I think it will always fail WP:V. One Night In Hackney 08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And a comment to Heimstern, being interesting or not is not a requirement for things to stay on Wikipedia. Kris Classic 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Perhaps "of general interest" is more what I'm looking for. Heimstern Läufer 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A one time event that is only notable to wrestling fans. Put it on a wresting wiki instead. RobJ1981 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly more can be found out. As far as it being of interest only to wrestling fans, you could apply many things on here as that. OsFan 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To my knowledge, this only made a splash with the Internet-savvy wrestling fanbase; any coverage of a "Plane Ride From Hell" in reliable sources are for completely different events. This article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge per nom.--IRelayer 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Internet fans may be the only ones to know, but why should that restrict others from knowing? EricVenken 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— EricVenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This was mentioned in UK newspapers, see here. But even so there's no confirmed report of what actually happened, only rumours and speculation. One Night In Hackney 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's mentioned in Curt Hennig's profile along with Michael P.S. Hayes's. It could use some expanding, but that is what Wikipedia is about. Let's give it a few months. If the article stays barren, then maybe delete it because Lord knows there are a lot of articles languishing. Besides, how many wrestling articles really belong here? It'll just get created again and again... 144.126.208.61 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From WP:V - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That is policy and non-negotiable. One Night In Hackney 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Totally agree with that reasoning. Just because it is mentioned on a few pages doesn't mean it needs it's own page. The only way that this alleged incident deserves mention is within the articles of the people that it affected the most (if proven). I know for sure that there were other events that have been tacked on to this story that are totally false. Booshakla 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable, unreferenced, trivial event. Montco 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it can be referenced through published works, both internet and hard copy, and doesn't actually fall foul of WP:V and WP:NOR, the overall relevance of it is pretty limited, and I don't think it deserves an aticle of its own. It is noted in the trivia section of WWE Insurrextion, and that's all it needs. Therefore I agree that Deletion is appropriate. --Dave. 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As someone said above, it's already mentioned at Curt Hennig. It doesn't appear that there's enough to be said about it to warrant its own article. - grubber 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What difference does it make if the article stays? Let's be honest here. We really don't have a grasp on the wrestling aspect of Wikipedia. There are literally thousands of articles that are pointless. Why this one? BennyLittleton 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— BennyLittleton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment It fails WP:V which is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe point of articles for deletion is to discuss what is pointless and what isn't. If you feel that there are thousands of others than are equally pointless then nominate them for deletion and we can discuss them. If nobody nominates them they won't be discussed. --Dave. 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I feel strongly about keeping this page alive. There is trouble with verifiability, but it's universally accepted that Henig lost his job because of the incident along with Scott Hall. This was a fairly big incident at the time. Hayes's mullet was definitely cut. I don't understand why these things, which are commong knowledge among Internet wrestling fans (who BTW are the ones who do all the productive work here), need to be cited. UT4LIFE 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— UT4LIFE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep per what UT said. HrothgarFan 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — HrothgarFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]

• Keep This is one of those borderline issues. I see both sides, but I don't think it's too big of a deal. I mean, it does fit the category of professional wrestling slang. You bring up the term to most smart fans and wrestlers, they know what you mean. I think we also need to realize how big this was at the time. This might be more of a context of the time issue than anything else IMO. TeenageWasteland1980 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — TeenageWasteland1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, unsourced unimportant trivium, wouldn't even be worth a paragraph in an article Sandstein 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verfiability is such B.S. We can't verify who killed JFK. That doesn't restrict us from writing an article on it. ISHBOO1111 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — ISHBOO1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• DeleteThe user who created the site has been banned, I would go so far as to say he created the other pages to protect his baby. TheCars4Life 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes he was, thanks for noting that. There is a possibility that there are socks voting. Booshakla 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing interesting here, P.S I bet some of those Keeps above are from the same person! IP check or setup another vote for this may be in order. Govvy 00:34, 11 February 2007 (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.