Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Peters

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Peters

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a look at the external links available, I then updated the article and added a short bio, career section covering the bits. Added citation from the external links, there are couple of hundred hits for him in a google search also. I think this is worth keeping now. Govvy 10:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I see reference wise is a geocities site and a wrestling fan site, neither of which meets WP:RS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment heh, well seemed good enough to me when I done it, still seems fine to me. :/ Govvy 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Geocities is not a reliable source, especially for biographical subjects (living or otherwise). Burntsauce 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's as reliable as any other site! Govvy 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...yet another glowing example of what is systemically wrong with the project you devote so much of your time to. Burntsauce 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is that suppost to mean? Anyway, you wish to delete the whole project, you never contact us on the WP talk page, you just remove everything the people on this project work hard for. So I would say what is wrong with this project is you. Anyway, the citation I provided is more than adequate. You are belittling goecities and the information it provides, when information is correct you use it. You don't throw it away like you have being doing. Govvy 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can have a Geocities site. They can put just about anything they want on it. There is no onus on the site owner to have their facts straight. That puts Geocities in the same league as MySpace and YouTube. They are not reliable or verifiable sources. DarkAudit 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes Wikipedia:Notable and has 230,000 google hits Neldav 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what exactly about this article passes WP:N -- arbitrarily pointing to a list of Google hits isn't it, and without reliable third party sources, this fails much more than just notability. Burntsauce 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:N because Peters has competed at the top level of his sport. Additionally, this article (though it previously didn't, it does now) have reliable third party sources, which also support the notability of the person in question.Theophilus75 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to Brady Boone. The wrestler in question wrestled for almost every notable wrestling promotion during the 1980s including the WWF, WCW and the Universal Wrestling Federation, apearing in the 1991 PPV event UWF Beach Brawl. He also competed for international promotions such as All Japan Pro Wrestling among others. MadMax 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GeoCities? C'mon, it's just a webhosting service. Any idiot can put any absurd thing he wants up there. A GeoCities site is proof of nothing other than somebody had some time to kill. ---Charles 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geocities can be used as a source, but look at the other sources also, I still can't believe all you young people never knew who this guy was. Was a very popular wrestler in the 80s. Govvy 13:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe an in depth bio on his WWF "BattleKat" character was written on Wrestlecrap by R.D. Reynolds [1] although prior articles are only provided through weekly repostings. [2]

KEEP I was just working on the "Brady Boone" article on Wikipedia and was searching for sources when I came across this article (I didn't start the other one...I was just cleaning it up). The two articles need merged together and cleaned up, which I was already in the process of doing. This article should really be redirected to the Brady Boone article (or vice versa). Theophilus75 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that certain people seemed to be obsessed with removing wrestling info from Wikipedia, especially when it has to do with wrestlers from the pre-1990s who it is harder to verify information with. I have been working on articles on wrestlers from the 1950s to the 1980s, and it is hard to get good source material for them. Wikipedia in its sourcing guidelines says that what is a valid source for some subjects may not be a valid source for others. I think these people who are obsessed with removing wrestling info should let the pro-wrestling project members work on cleaning up these articles.Theophilus75 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment Wikipedia recommends merging over deletion IF an article is found as not notable (I would disagree that this article is not notable, but hey...I was around in the 1980s and followed wrestling then...but I digress (or not really). So, here's a question I ask of the person who suggested this for deletion and those who would support it, where would you suggest we merge this article to if you don't agree with me that it should be merged with the Brady Boone article? Remember, Wikipedia suggests merging...Theophilus75 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll support that idea. Great work! MadMax 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There shouldn't be two articles in the first place, and merging one article that fails WP:BIO into another article that fails WP:BIO isn't a good idea at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware there shouldn't be two articles to begin with, didn't know there was until I started working on the other and found out this one existed. I'd disagree that it doesn't meet notability however. Just an FYI, I placed my Brady Boone article into the Dean Peters article and have placed a redirect from Brady Boone to Peters.Theophilus75 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject is non-notable and sources are shakey at best. RFerreira 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question & Comment Please expand on exactly what you mean by sources being "shakey at best?" It should be noted that the sources used when this article was recommended for deletion are not the same sources that are currently used in the article. The current sources are standard sources for both wrestling and non-wrestling articles on Wikipedia and I have worked to add various sources verifying the information in the article. Additionally, the added number of sources further contributes to the notability of the individual. Theophilus75 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I think the article has improved and is better than it was since it was prodded. The geocities citations have been taken out, you have to remember, that older wrestlers wont get the same kind of coverage on the internet like the new ones. Hopefully those that are voting for deletion will have a rethink. Govvy 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this was nominated there was a major edit to the article, it was actually a merge with another article (at the recommendation of the nom) that resulted in the nominated article basically being swallowed up. Since the major edit/merge, that includes sources, there has been only one "Delete" recommendation, and that recommendation is "per nom" when the nom's reasons for nominating the article no longer exist. All other reasons given for the delete (prior to this major edit/merge) have been addressed and corrected in the edit/merge. Theophilus75 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been substantially improved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - doesn't seem to have done much. --Counter-revolutionary 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this prod is now invalid considering the extensive over-howl of the article. Govvy 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article now has enough reliable sources to show that the context (which seems to show notability) is true. *Cremepuff 222* 00:24, 20 May 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.