Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Brimstone (wrestler) (second nomination)

-- Mdd (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Brimstone (wrestler)
Chief reasons: as per WQ:NOT ... "personal website" / "collection of your personal quotes" and Vanity page. Now, I acknowledge that this article has survived a previous VFD, but I will provide reasons to overturn that. I can say that Brimstone's Wikipedia page is due to be deleted for failing notability in its third deletion nomination. I urge all WikiQuote members to click the that link. Disclaimer: I do not normally edit Wikiquote, but I do edit Wikipedia as a member of WikiProject Professional wrestling. So the question is, if Brimstone is not notable, how did the Wikipedia page survive two nominations for deletion and one nomination for deletion in Wikiquote? Simply put, we do believe that since 2007, the Brimstone pages on Wikipedia and Wikiquote have been created, supported and protected by proven sockpuppets which obviously have an agenda towards promoting Brimstone. These sockpuppets projected a false sense of notability and included a large amount of trivia and even dubious information into the article which were backed up by sources too closely associated with the subject (many interviews), and reverted edits to trim down the article and even contributed to abuse by voting against deletion in Wikipedia AfDs. It is only when the sockpuppets were banned that WP:PW editors were able to trim down the article and ultimately propose for its deletion. An old version of the Wikipedia Brimstone article was called The Funniest Entry on Wikipedia. Please do read that as well. I believe that the WikiQuote members which voted to keep the article were fooled by the Wikipedia article's notability, therefore I am re-proposing that this article be deleted, once the Wikipedia page is deleted. — Starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 04:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Brimstone doesn't even come close to meeting WQ:NOTE. The Wikiquote article was created by one of the accounts linked to Brimstone that was recently blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. And those quotes are awful anyway. 96.244.132.35 03:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete With all due respect to the editors of the previous discussion, they seem to have assumed the subject was notable only after clicking on his article on Wikipedia, which was riddled with problems as Starship points out. I too was actually fooled into thinking the subject was notable based on the tremendous size of his article, despite never hearing about the subject in all of my countless years as a wrestling fan.  But the recent events Starship describes ultimately proved that he wasn't notable, and that the article has bamboozled many editors with its puffery and sockpuppetry.  Brimstone isn't a notable figure, and I'll be damned if he ever uttered a notable word in his career.  All of the sources provided look wholly unreliable.  Plus, let's face it, the guy wasn't Winston Churchill... removing this page is doing Wikiquote a favor.LM2000 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Thanks to Starship for getting this off the ground. I agree with everything he said, and I would also add as a comment that we should look out for the WP editor who created this article here (RingWars) possibly trying to rescue this somehow, when it can't be. The man is simply not notable and fails all relevant criteria. TLPG (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Clear case of self-promotion. Oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think the points have been covered by the nomination. Time for "a.I... critical.... massacre" of this self-sourced spam. Suriel1981 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Wikipedia discussion reveals a non-notable self-promoter. I note that the participants in the discussion here have not previously participated much with Wikiquote, but are editors with established records as Wikipedia contributors. BD2412 T 16:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, the WP article has now been deleted via AfD. TLPG (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: harmless page, subject is notable. DanielTom (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the subject was notable how come the article on Wikipedia was deleted? "Harmless page" isn't a valid reason to keep it. TLPG (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because of a coordinated campaign by you and your friends, who piled "delete" votes much in the same way as you did here, even though you have almost no edits on Wikiquote (which is fine). I note it was kept in previous discussions, and my scanning through the references of the WP article made me reach the conclusion that he was notable enough, a conclusion shared by other experienced Wikipedia users. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of the participants in the discussion were experienced Wikipedia users. Of them, only two voted yes.  One of them was under the assumption that the reason for the deletions was the article's connection to the sockpuppets, which is an incorrect assessment.  Another offered up one source as being sufficient for reliability... that source was a newsblog, which was mislabeled in the article as being from "NBC News".  It should be noted that at least one of the delete votes came from an administrator.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A previous version of the page was voted to be kept twice on Wikipedia, but it was bloated with puffery, trivia and primary sources. Even the cut-down version of the page was relying too much on primary sources and sources too closely related to the subject (numerous interviews). Perhaps you did scan through the references, but did you read my analysis on each reference on Wikipedia? Many claims in the article were backed by interviews, where Brimstone himself made the claims, and I proved that he made dubious claims. This greatly affects reliability. If I were to remove all the information from the article which relied on a primary source or an interview with Brimstone, do you know what would be left? Only two things, his marriage and his win of the NWA Great Lakes Heavyweight Championship, a totally minor championship. Look, everything here on Wikiquote is regarding Brimstone's wrestling. Must I say again, Brimstone in his entire career, was never rated by a magazine WP:PW considers established as one of the top 500 in the world based on their accomplishments in that year. Not once, not even in 2001 when he won that NWA title, and they come up with a different top 500 every year. Ask yourself, is this a guy who has actually achieved something in any field, be it wrestling, comics or sauces? (and WP:PW will tell you this guy has done nothing of note in wrestling) Or is this guy, just some nobody who happens to invest in publicity and has done a few media interviews to promote himself? Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interviews are obviously much more valuable as sources on Wikiquote than on WP. DanielTom (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WQ:N says "Generally, if a topic is notable on Wikipedia, then it is notable enough for Wikiquote. Conversely, if an article about the topic has been deleted from Wikipedia on grounds of non-notability, then it is likely to be considered not notable on Wikiquote." 96.244.132.35 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The value of interviews is not uniform. Sometimes people are interviewed because they are notable, and sometimes it is just promotional activity because they want to be noticed. It seems clear which is the case here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the subject was so notable, I'm sure that DanielTom would be glad to look at the list of sources used in the article that Starship.paint posted in the wikipedia afd, state which ones establish notability, and then "right great wrongs" and create a well sourced version of the Brimstone article.
 * That won't happen of course, and I think we all know why.
 * I also notice that "scanning the references of the WP article made you reach the conclusion that he was notable", you didn't actually participate in the Wikipedia AfD.
 * It should also be noted that the two keep votes actually came to Wikipedia from the deletion discussion on Commons. Like you, they were given a chance to say which sources they thought were reliable and demonstrated notability. They didn't do so. Again, I think we all know why. 96.244.132.35 09:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I see nothing to indicate that the person was notable or that there was any sort of concerted effort to remove the article from Wikipedia.--174.93.163.194 02:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To round this up, let's just see the intro of this article. You'll see the critical issues I'm talking about. Critical Mass Pro Wrestling, a promotion he founded, and PWR Wrestling, a promotion he participated in, has no Wikipedia page. Neither does Maniac Mike Mayhem, Chris Hostile, and manager Chavez Raoul. Don't you think it's likely that it's because they're all not notable? Brimstone and the Borderhounds comic was also recently deleted for not being notable.
 * Now, the second issue. NYWC does have a Wikipedia page. But, Brimstone says he founded it and played a a part in its first event in 1998, while I have three online sources that says NYWC never held an event until 2003. (See en.wiki discussion) I also could not find any mention of Brimstone in NYWC. Dubious claim number one. The UWF exists (two incarnations during Brimstone's time), but I can find no mention on the web that Brimstone actually wrestled for them. Dubious claim number two. That's all to it. It's either non-notable or dubious in this intro.
 * Lastly, XiBalba!! Starship.paint (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because not even remotely notable. Examining sources cited in the "In media" section of the present article, in order:
 * 1-2 (lifamilies.com): an anonymously posted puff-piece at a local interest social networking site.
 * 3 (popstarsplus.com): a hosting service where aspiring performers can post promotional materials.
 * 4 (warned.net): dead link, domain randomly redirected
 * 5 (wrestlingclothesline.com): dead link, domain not found
 * 6 (pwrwrestling.com): dead link, media file not found
 * 7–9 (longislandexchange.com): dead link at a local interest portal
 * 10–11 (newsday.com): dead link at a local interest portal
 * 12 (riotradionetwork.com): dead link, domain not found
 * From all the dead links, it looks like Wikipedia is not the only one that has been taking out the trash. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)