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 Keep, since it's been stubbed.. - Philippe 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triplemania[edit]

Triplemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Confused, no-context essay about an organisation or something else involved with wrestling. Its "references" defy comprehension. Even if this turns out to exist and be notable, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR.  Sandstein  21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is so incoherent that, even if it is a notable subject, it would be better to delete it and let somebody start over with a clean sheet. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the surmountable problem section. Poor writing is never a reason for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with that if the article had other qualities which redeemed it. This has not. On a grumpy day I would be tempted to put db-nonsense on an article like this. Anyway, I can't parse a coherent assertion of notability out of it and that is certainly grounds for deletion, unless somebody can add one. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - rambling without a topic, as such no real claim of notability. --T-rex 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first of the references has spelling mistakes on the navigation bars. "Shedules", "Ring's Godess", "Bussines Contact" and the opening page says "Wellcome". A terrible, terrible article. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the surmountable problem section. Deleting this Wikipedia article because the Mexican organization that runs the event has a few spelling mistakes on the English version of their website doesn't make sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am fully aware of ATAIDD, but the first ref on the page is not RS, the second is not in english, the third has multiple pop-ups and makes no reference to Triplemania, the fourth also makes no mention of Triplemania, and if you looked at the fifth reference you would see that this article is mainly plagiarized from it. I am sure that AAA runs a few super shows, but as notability is not inherited I cannot judge from this article that there is any legit claim to notability. Darrenhusted (talk)
    • Of those arguments, the most convincing is the plagiarism. It seems wrong to replace the page with a copyvio tag during a deletion discussion, but the article certainly needs to go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems if it survives this AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix - I believe that the article does claim notability for the subject. I am concerned about the original research, frequent point of view statements (including the subject heading "The Worst Point in the History of TripleMania"), and the repetead unmeasurable claim of "hotness". I'm very concerned about several statements that I believe to be laughably untrue, such as the claim that AAA became the "hottest" promotion in the United States in 1993. The article needs a lot of work to be brought up to Wikipedia standards, but I don't believe it meets the deletion criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GaryColemanFan. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have sharply stubbed the article as there was a lot of original research and copyvios in the article. However the article does appear to be notable and have added a reference to the article to verify what is left of the article and start establishing that notability. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (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.