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. Majorly 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible db-bio candidate brought to AfD because of disruption in the deletion process by a banned editor. Non-notable wrestler, fails WP:BIO and WP:V, should be deleted. RWR8189 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He seems to be a fairly popular Indy Wrestler in Australia. A yahoo search brings up numerous pages on his career. I added a couple of references, one of which was apparently printed in an australian CANADIAN (edit: let's pretend that I can tell the difference between australia and canada. :P )newspaper. JN322 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sarah 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing to push him over the edge notability wise. One Night In Hackney 12:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as edited by JN322. Borderline case, so I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. GassyGuy 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I object to the premise of the deletion nomination, which is written in jargon and is not relevant to any cause for deletion, plus we have two rubber stamp deletes to a meaningless nomination. Let's talk about the merits of the subject not an editor (author or not) --Kevin Murray 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The premise being what? That the article fails WP:BIO and WP:V? If failing WP:BIO and WP:V are not relevant to deletion, I don't know what is...--RWR8189 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I object to the first sentence of the nomination because (a) "db bio" is jargon without a clear meaning and (b) "disruption by an editor" is irrelevant to the quality of the article, which is the subject of the AfD nomination.

(2) The second sentence is clear to me and pertinent, though debatable; however, is it clear to the authors of the article who may not be well versed in WP jargon? Would it be better to say "the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the topic per WP:BIO, and does not cite enough references per WP:V"? The authors have put a great deal of work into producing this article, perhaps we should put a little more time into crafting the deletion proposals.

This is not a criticism directed at the nominator; I think that the whole AfD process is getting bit sloppy and cavalier. I realize that clarity requires more work, but AfD is serious business not to be taken lightly or in a routine manner.

--Kevin Murray 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is jargon that perhaps should be avoided, but is simply explaining why the article has been nominated here rather than already deleted, and does not in any way constitute the "premise of the deletion nomination". The second sentence is the premise, and as you say, pertinent. It would be better if written without jargon, but surely advocating keeping the article because of the words used in the nomination rather than the nature of the article, is even less helpful than using jargon? It definitely doesn't help me form an opinion. JPD (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:BIO - Longhair\^talk 08:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Comment What went on exactly with this guy's deletion nomination as well as the others. I notice I can't even find my deletion discussion in my cont page anymore from the original. I believe someone argued that it was originally nominated for deletion (with other wrestlers from the same organization) by someone who had personal motives against it. Now I don't follow wrestling at all, be it American, Canadian, or otherwise. But if someone is nailing these things for some type of spiteful purpose, then I think we need to be more careful before nominating it for deciding to delete, as Kevin Murray pointed out above. JN322 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a prior discussion which resulted in speedy keep and deletion of the original discussion because it was nominated by a banned editor. However WP:V is not negotiable and all articles must stand on their own.--RWR8189 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But as I said before the SLAM article I added (which is an australian sports online publication) has an article which mentions him and his career far more than simply in passing. He has a cult following (which is what I would call Indy Wrestling fans in any country). So while he is not very popular outside his circle, it doesn't matter. Popularity is not requisite for notability. And as I posted previously a yahoo search of his "name" bring up many pages which mention parts of his career. So I would say that he meets notability. The Slam article (Slam being a online sports publication of the Calgary Sun). I contend that the article, the various websites, the cult following, etc. allow him to pass as notable, and have the Slam being varifiable, non-trivial w/editorial oversight on at least one account. JN322 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless more mainstream sources are included, agree the nom is poor. Addhoc 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One source of mainstream coverage doesn't cut it per WP:BIO. Sandstein 12:39, 16 January 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.