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.
Delete. I'm not seeing all those multiple non-trivial references. I'm seeing a blizzard of wrestling (or, more properly, "wrasslin'") websites and one ref in the free local weekly East Bay Express. Quantity =/= quality, here. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that they're there, buried under the fan websites, they're all still local (Bay Area) references: so mr famous national wrestler only gets referenced by local news sources? Uh uh.--Calton | Talk 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I the creator of this article have requested that the article be temporarily deleted while I look for more adequate sources. Bearhug Lewis 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, but you have lost that right since other editors have made substantail contributions - the AfD must run its course. TerriersFan 16:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am Shavenhead2 so I am the only person who has made substantial contributions. Also, I added the speedy delete tag before Parsonburg edited the page so no substantial contributions had been added before I added the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shavenhead2 (talk • contribs)
Keep the entry, along with all of the sources. Also, I've made substantial edits to the entry, so its clear that more than one person has been contributing to the entry. - User:Parsonsburg
Keep. The article has a substansial amount of references, several of which includes news articles and other independent, non-trivial and reliable sources, in its 45 cited references. The subjects notability, in term of WP:Bio, has clearly been established. MadMax 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most or almost all of those "45 cited references" seem to fail WP:RS by a country mile. Quantity =/= quality. --Calton | Talk 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fullfills WP:N in addition to WP:BLP and WP:A just to cover all the bases, in it's current form it's actually a good Wikipedia entry MPJ-DK 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, just because an article is good doesn't mean it can stay. If I made an excellent article on me, that was well sourced, would that be able to stay? No, because I haven't done anything that to need of an article. Kris 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering I voted keep on the grounds of it falling within WP:N my additional comment on it being a good article is just that - an additional comment. It fullfills the notability requirement so unless you want to talk about that fact we've got nothing to talk about. MPJ-DK 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully referenced so its verifiable, WP:BIO states that a person is notable if they have been the subject of third party coverage and he has. Regards - The Sunshine Man 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is ridiculous. If any random person writes about him online it doesn't make him notable. Kris 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all content which relies upon Google Groups, Usenet, and Wikipedia as a supposed source. RFerreira 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, looks like a decent article. Govvy 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because an article is well written, or well sourced, doesn't mean the article is needed. He is not very notable aside from a few appearances in a few indy promotions. Kris 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can't say notability is a matter of degree - "he's not very notable" isn't a criteria, the "Notability" requirement has been met with sources & references MPJ-DK 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the newspaper and magazine articles, he appears to be notable.--Pharoahski 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article is well-written and well-sourced then it fulfills policies. I've never even heard of this bloke but it's clear he exists and has done something and got coverage for it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, but not well sourced. My suggestion is to keep the article, but I see that we are still self-referencing (linking to Wikipedia as a reference) and relying on other unreliable sources as well. Please correct this or remove the information which relies on such sources. RFerreira 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable west coast wrestler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why is this still being debated? It's obvious that the votes for keeping the article vastly outnumber the votes to delete it... much to the chagrin of the naysayers. - User:Parsonsburg
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.