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. Sandstein 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Fairway

[edit]

Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources. The one "reference" provided can be seen here and the two sentences reference absolutely nothing in the article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chip Fairway's notability has been established as a wrestler who has held titles in IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association, both notable promotions, appeared on the first Brian Pillman Memorial Show as well as appearing on both WWF and WCW television. Additionally, the nominator could have contacted me if he felt the article had been improperly sourced or placed any number of templates including ((citecheck)) rather then immediatly nominating it on afd. However, I've since specified the source in which Chip Fairway's particular "gimmick" is ranked no. 9 on a list of wrestlers whose personas are those other then a typical wrestler ("Keeping Your Day Job"). noted as one of the more unusual "gimmicks", others on this specific list include notable wrestlers Brutus "the Barber" Beefcake, Isaac Yankum and the Repo Man. MadMax 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment When you talk about notability, perhaps you'd like to stop talking about things that are notable to wrestling fans that are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and instead use notability guidelines? Has this person been the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources? No. Is there a good deal of verifiable information available about him? No. Wrestling in minor wrestling promotions does not confer notability on him. Minor league baseball players are not generally notable, therefore neither are minor league wrestlers. An unsourced claim that he appeared on TV as a jobber does not make him notable, we don't have articles on every single actor that has ever appeared on TV, just the notable ones. There was absolutely no need for me to use ((citecheck)), as I checked the reference myself and it did not verify anything in the article at the time. I suggest in future instead of applying the unhelpful method used by the wrestling wikiproject of simply adding references to the bottom of the article like a magic umbrella, you attribute information to the references. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please refrain from making widereaching, misleading generalizations about WP:PW and stick to the subject at hand MPJ-DK 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject at hand is the deletion of this article, perhaps you'd like to follow your own advice and use my talk page in future? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weither or not you feel the article itself is properly sourced, which seems to be your major issue with the article, Chip Farway is a notable wrestler. IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association are both notable promotions and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show is a notable event. I'll be the first to agree that Wikipedia should not resemble a wrestling trivia site, and wrestlers such as Texx Reed or promotions like as the recently deleted South Cali Pro Wrestling are clearly examples of non notablility. However, there are notable independent wrestlers specifically those who have wrestled for notable promotions and events. Wrestling as a regular competitor (nevermind winning titles) in a notable promotion does make a wrestler notable, regardless weither its properly sourced or not. There are plenty of wrestlers who have been included in Wikipedia whose career highlight was competing as a "jobber" for the WWF and WCW. This is not a notability issue, this is a matter of providing references as in many wrestling articles nominated for deletion. MadMax 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, your comments have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines on notability for people, which can be found at WP:BIO. Rather than making up your own guidelines out of thin air, I suggest you use the existing ones. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

I'm not simply picking independent wrestlers at random an neither am I "making up guidelines out of thin air". The reason you propose the articles deletion is your claim he's not notable. However, while the article may be poorly sourced in your opinion, the fact remains he is notable as a professional wrestler having won titles in two notable promotions. Regardless, this article already has one reference as per a published book (as well as numerous ouces used by other wrestling articles as reliable sources) and I don't see how his notability above the "average" independent wrestler is still in question. MadMax 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes you are making guidelines up out of thin air. You're saying he's notable "for x and y", yet neither of those are in the notability guidelines. You claim two of the promotions are notable, yet neither of them has been proven to be notable, in fact they are unsourced at present. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. You are quite correct in that he's probably as notable as the "average" independent wrestler, who by and large are not notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are half the wrestling articles on Wikipedia, but I don't see anyone calling for their deletion. If you feel these promotions are non notable, you are free to nominate them for deletion. However, as they presently exist on Wikipedia, the assumption is that they are notable. According to your reasoning, if Bret Hart or Ric Flair were unrefernced due to ther accomplishments, then they too should be nominated for deletion as well. Also, please note I said "above the average independent wrestler" (winning titles in two major independent promotions, featured in a published book, appeared at notable event, etc.) not "the same as". Despite your own opinions, I've provided several references suppporting his notability, references which have been used in numerous other wrestling articles. I would urge anyone voting in this discussion to take this into consideration. Also, I've since provided references established both promotions notability and have removed the unreferenced tags. MadMax 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm nominating the articles at a steady and slow rate, I would only get accused of a violation of WP:POINT if I nominated 50 wrestlers for deletion in one day. You fail to understand the difference between someone's name on a title history page and a non-trivial source. The published book is a paltry two sentences, again not a non-trivial source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied you were violating WP:POINT, and I understand your reasons for the articles nomination however I simply disagree with them. You claim subjects are non notable regardless articles clearly asserting nobility. Using this argument, you go on to make the claim that because the article may or may not be properly sourced, their achievements can be disregarded. You've nominated other wrestling related articles based on this point yet it has been shown through many prior nominations (see: World Xtreme Wrestling or International World Class Championship Wrestling) that such references can be provided. Also, if you feel independent wrestlers and promotions are by themselves non notable, you may want to consider discussing your views with WP:PW if you believe they should generally not be included on Wikipedia in regards to future afd nominations. MadMax 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop relying on proof by assertion, and provide evidence that this person meets WP:BIO, specifically multiple independent non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding an article only two days after it has been created up for deletion seems a bit over the top. You didn't even give it a chance to grow! Govvy 09:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn independent wrestler, plenty of them have been deleted as of late, isn't notable at all. Biggspowd 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:A as there are no non-trivial reliable sources apparently available to support this article. Burntsauce 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:A does in no way even mention the world "trivial" in any regards, just that the sources have to be attributable - like say the book used as a source. But I'm sure you'll try again ;) MPJ-DK 05:09, 27 April 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.