Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterMat

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, website does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterMat

I propose that this article be deleted, as it appears to be about a non-notable wrestling website. There are no reliable sources listed and any claims of notability appear to relate to associated people, not the website itself. If some sources could be listed, it would be a good start towards making this a good article. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is a notable website, I don't think it should have it's own article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because a population is uneducated on a particular sport does not mean you should just strike it from the annals of Wikipedia. This site has been a news resource for college, high school and Olympic wrestling for over 13 years. That's longer than Wikipedia has been on the net.
- Also, I had this page "vandalized" by a rival web site. Had I not showed up and made the fix, would it have shown up in the recent changes? How much more content do I have to add to basically validate this page?

Oduwildman (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some material may be useful for an article on National Wrestling Coaches Association, maybe a stub for Jason Bryant, but the website itself would rely wholly on the notability of the Assoc. involved. Also, contact info is considered somewhat spammy. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The web site does NOT rely on the Association. In fact, the media web site gets 10-15 times the traffic the association site does. You're telling me that a 13-year media web site (Which was independent prior to 2004) and has its news running on ESPN and the USA Today isn't worthy of a listing. I'm sorry I don't quite "grasp" your wikipedia relevance, but this site is relevant to thousands and thousands of people. I'm trying to keep building the listing to please you wiki people who obviously know ZERO about wrestling. Instead of being a pain in the butt, how about some tips on what else you people would want to see. Google InterMat Oduwildman (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out keep, you only get one "vote". Stifle (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sets my WP:SPAM alarms off. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, have your fun. If that's how it's set up, that's how it's set up. Oduwildman (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the creator of the page Oduwildman doesn't seem to understand the policies of the site. Websites need a ton of back up to be notable. This article fails WP:N, and the creator complains that "this page (was) "vandalized" by a rival web site. Had I not showed up and made the fix, would it have shown up in the recent changes?" meaning that he didn't want it to be seen? Does he acknowledge that the page is not needed and hoped to keep it secret but recent changes have flagged it up? Also he seems to have issues with ownership and conflict of interest. The website exists, but the high Ghits come from pages which simply list page names or are not related to the page in question. But more importantly does the editor who created this page (and has edited little else since) really believe every website needs a Wikipedia page, if so then we will simply be duplicating the internet. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:50, 1 May 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.