Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davey Andrews

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. Reasons given for keeping are poor (i.e. "he's on Google" and "the article is new"). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Andrews

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can find him on google, I say keep it. Kris Classic 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lots of people can be found with google, that doesn't make him notable. He's a new wrestler who hasn't accomplished anything yet. ↪Lakes (Talk) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So? All guys were new at one point, and it really isn't hurting anything being on Wiki. Kris Classic 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It certainly hurts. Wikipedia has a notability policy and he fails it. He might accomplish something later, and if he does then an article can be made about him. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Puh-lease, this is an encyclopedia, used to look up anything. Just because he is a small time wrestler doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an article. Please just move on. This is a place for learning, not a popularity contest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete - Just barely passes WP:BIO, but I still don't think that it warrants an article. Now, if someone cites a few things in the article, then this might survive. (Gee, the more I do these AFDs the more I realize I'm a deletionist...) PTO 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Weak or not, it still passes, so I don't even see a reason for it to be up for deletion. Kris Classic 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. P TO 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's only recently been added, give it a chance to grow I'd say. Govvy 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN wrestler, article also doesn't assert notability and this guy looks like any other indy wrestler. TJ Spyke 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking like "any other indy wrestler" isn't a good reason for an article to be deleted. Kris Classic 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not why I voted delete, I was just pointing that out. His article doesn't do anything to seperate him from the thousands of other non-notable indy wrestlers. TJ Spyke 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable independent wrestler. Only source is an unreliable fan site. One Night In Hackney 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unreliable fan site? That is BS. OWW is a reliable source, used as a site on most wrestler's articles. Kris Classic 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Afd etiquette before making any further comments? Secondly, OWW is a fansite and not reliable. Example [1] states "Khosrow Vaziri started out as an amature wrestler and even won a medel at the 1968 Olympic Games, representing Iran". Ignoring that your "reliable source" can't even spell medal or amateur, it is incorrect. Khosrow Vaziri states "Although he was billed as having been a 1968 Olympic medalist, this is untrue", which is confirmed by the relevant results from the 1968 Olympics. OWW is nothing more than a fansite, and should not be considering a reliable source. One Night In Hackney 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that amature is the British spelling of the American amateur. Am I wrong? Also, One Night, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. Cheers, P TO 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, even us Brits spell it "amateur". Sorry wasn't meaning to bite, was just trying to help him. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Maybe we should remove OWW as a source from all wrestling bios, as if you look at any of them, they are there.
- Then why not remove IGN and GameSpot from all video game articles just because they have made errors? I'm not arguing for or againat OWW, jut pointing out they aren't the only ones to have errors. TJ Spyke 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OWW is a glorified fan site for wrestling fans. I doubt every wrestler listed on the site is notable. The fact OWW links are listed in many wrestling articles means very little: seeing as how there isn't alot of other major wrestling sites out there (besides the official ones for WWE, TNA, etc, along with news sites and fan sites such as OWW). RobJ1981 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work but i think he has worked with major independent promotions ~~and has worked internationally~~ and thats enough to make him notable -- Paulley

Comment Reliable source for the international work please. One Night In Hackney 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it's Davey Richards who is schedualed to compete in the KOE cup. ---Paulley

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.