Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backstreet Brawler (Will Prichard)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backstreet Brawler (Will Prichard)

Backstreet Brawler (Will Prichard) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable indy wrestler, and a very poorly written article. Kris Classic 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Do I really need to explain why?! Davnel03 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Yes you do. --Aaru Bui DII 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN indy wrestler. Also gets very few Google hits. TJ Spyke 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This wrestler was part of the orginal ECW; which hardcore fans (no pun) remember and Vince McMahon makes a mockery of on Scifi. He's related to known guys that worked in the WWE. Plus, Kris Classic has a right to his own opinion, but this is not a poorly written article. It's a simple one, not overglorifying Brawler's career. It's paying respect to one part of the orginal ECW. Plus, wikipedia has articles on other indy wrestlers (like Vladimere Koloff), you can call NN too.User:Goofy14
    • No doubt this will be deleted, because wikipedia isn't a democracy. Other indie wrestlers you can call NN, because they didn't make a big name across the country. Still, these workers pay dues, but never get recognized. Jerry Lawler mentions this in his biography (p.244). It's just a shame some wikipedians have a pompus viewpoint, but that wikipedia's right to make that rule (no democracy). In the long-term, the more these viewpoints grow, the quicker wikipedia will implode. It happened in WCW and other businesses. If wikipedia bans me, I don't care. The world and life goes on and wikipedia isn't the only website for looking and contributing information. To quote Steve Austin, "THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!!!" If you don't like it, can lump it. Goofy14.
  • Delete Non-notable. Being part of the original ECW doesn't matter (people employed by WWE don't automatically deserve articles either), and it's been established that just being related to someone notable doesn't make you notable. Also, WP has made it clear that "this article should exist because this other article does" isn't valid. Lrrr IV 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. It's not a matter of indie wrestlers "never getting recognised". Paying respect to ECW is not what Wikipedia is for. Being related to a WWE employee is not a good reason for existence. If the article was expanded hugely and referenced then my viewpoint might be swayed. Suriel1981 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
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.