Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Taylor (wrestler)

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. —Kurykh 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Taylor (wrestler)

Chuck Taylor (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP There is absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. There is enough information in this article to tell that Chuck Taylor does exist. His MySpace page, OWW profile, among other things are there. And like Callelinea said, it's better to have a lot of information that you know is true than just half of what is possible. And indeed, DanZero, there are VERY notable indy wrestling names in this article. Every indy fan is familiar with Chris Hero, Ian Rotten, Low Ki, Davey Richards, and even more in this article. Actually, all are notable, including Chuck Taylor, who has been getting tons of praise from the internet wrestling community. Theperfectone 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Although not an SPA, this editor has made few edits outside of the article which is up for deletion.
  • Comment having lots of links to bigger wrestlers in the article does not make this article worth keeping, and the praise of the IWC is not proof of notability. Darrenhusted 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

* KEEP Obviously we wouldn't waste time creating this page even though i wouuldn't put it past people who actually do that. We provided proof and what not to prove the guy is real. He isn't that important of a Wrestler to have a Wiki page so soon but he does exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Clearly the 4 keeps above this have not made decisions based upon policy but upon the belief that all people need bio pages. This Wrestler has done nothing notable in or outside of the sport. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable wrestler article gives no indication with multiple independent reliable sources to prove otherwise. Whispering 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are multiple independent wrestling sources on the page. Theperfectone 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it appears that he has wrestled and won titles for 2 different professional wrestling leagues. Passes WP:BIO --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment CHIKARA boasts "On Sunday, February 18th, 2007 CHIKARA drew their biggest crowd ever of 275 at the New Alhambra/ECW Arena in Philadelphia, PA to see the "King of Trios" finals.", and IWA's champions (apart from Chuck) are redlinks. I don't think their championships are notable. Darrenhusted 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "I don't think" is not a valid criteria for determining anything. As he has/does wrestle for a professional league, he's notable. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The bar of notability is slightly higher than "has wrestled". IWA and CHIKARA are small indy promos, they are not ROH or even DSW or OVW. If their largest crowd is 275 then the league is not notable. Darrenhusted 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO clearly states that if they have played in a professional league, they are NOTABLE. It does not say anything about the number in attendance to the sport for it to be notable. This guy easily passes whether you like it or not. The policy is pretty clear. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Best reply yet. There's really nothing else to be said. He passes, guys. There's no need to change the policy. It says nothing about attendance. They're independent professional promotions. There's nothing else anyone can say to counter that. The man has been trained. He's professional. He wrestles for independent promotions. He's notable. Theperfectone 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The word "professional" in professional wrestling is there to distinguish it from amateur wrestling, it does not make those who have wrestled in indy promos "professionals". For PW the bar for notability is set higher than wrestling in bingo halls. Darrenhusted 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How exactly is IWA MS not notable? You guys are making no sense. Chuck Taylor has been trained professionally. If someone does wrestle in an indy promotion, how are they not professional? They are. They've been trained. Professional and non-professional separates whether you've been trained or not. Chuck Taylor has been trained. So he's notable. The company runs small buildings. But they have also been around since 1996. And if you want to go deep in this, the promoter of ROH, Gape Sapolsky, mentioned Chuck Taylor on the ROH website, saying he would look into his work when ROH got the IWA MS DVDs in stock. So yes, ROH DOES notice Chuck Taylor. And yes, he's notable. I don't understand your thoughts when you say he isn't notable. He's been in the ring with very notable wrestlers. Of course, the average indy promotion isn't going to draw 500 people. If you think that, you're crazy. I would never expect it. I don't see why you guys would either. According to Wikipedia, IWA Mid-South is a notable promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Wrestling_Association_Mid-South
Adding that, go to their website, www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com

Look at the whole site. Chuck Taylor is all over it. He's one of their main draws, obviously. IWA Mid-South isn't expecting 500 people for a show. So I don't know why you guys would. You should look into your criteria a little more before going on a subject like independent professional wrestling. Theperfectone 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This editor has edited almost exclusively on Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South and Chuck Taylor, and this AfD.

  • Sorry, notability is not inherited. Notable promotion ≠ notable wrestler, at least when that promotion is such a lo-o-o-o-ong way from the big time. Darren, I think you missed a larger point below. "If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page?" By that logic, why do we need any part of Wikipedia? Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page? Obviously you are passionate about saving this page, you have edited it a lot, but this article does not meet standards of notability, some two-bit small-time indy wrestler selling DVDs of himself to other promoters is not a notable occurance, getting called up to the main roster in WWE or TNA is. Darrenhusted 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a simple answer to that. Not all the information can be found on http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com. He does work for other indy promotions, not just IWA MS. I'm just proving that he's a huge draw to IWA MS with that statement and that he is a notable professional wrestler. Anyone who is professional is notable. Theperfectone 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Then the IWA website needs to be updated. Non Notable wrestler draws 275 people to Non Notable indy fed does not establish notability. Darrenhusted 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
CHIKARA is not a non notable federation. They are growing in popularity, run multiple cards per month at times, hold established tournaments that feature indy wrestlers from different federations all over the world (including ROH), and in July, they will officially be multi state when they run a show outside of Pennsylvania. Chuck Taylor has won two consecutive tournaments for the company, and is not a non notable wrestler. — 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment They can't put CHIKARA and his other career's info on an IWA MS site. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Theperfectone 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment quit filibustering. Darrenhusted 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What? What I said is obviously right. Why would you put another promotion's information on your site (if you owned IWA Mid-South)? That would be like TNA putting Kurt Angle's WWE achievements on their site. Theperfectone 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm sorry, I should have said quit filibustering, of your last 50 edits "theperfectone" nearly all have been removing PRODs then commenting in AfDs, if you want the article saved then go edit. Darrenhusted 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I know what filibustering is. I didn't say "what" to that. You seemed to just totally drop your earlier statement after you saw what I typed. Why are you trying to ignore the point I made? Theperfectone 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment yes I am ignoring you, becuase you are just filibustering. Darrenhusted 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In a debate, if you catch someone saying something wrong that is not an opinion, you're obviously going to prove a point. Why not say something about it? You don't want the other side to win in a debate. Theperfectone 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment One last time, and s l o w l y for you. You...are...filibustering. Edit the article, stop pumping up this debate. The problem is that you feel you own this article and don't want it deleted, but spamming AfDs and filibustering does not help the article. Darrenhusted 23:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey. As long as you are making no sense, I'm throwing in my comments. Spamming isn't what I'm doing. I'm actually making sense about the indy scene, unlike you. While it doesn't help the article itself (even though I've been working on it a lot tonight, but that's another story. That would be helping it. But, anyway...), it does help the decision to keep the article. So far, I have made numerous points. IWA Mid-South and Chikara are in no way small indies. They're actually two of the bigger indies. Why keep discussing something you know nothing about (the indy scene)? Theperfectone 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just noting that you seem to be arguing that people who wrestled in the original ECW aren't notable... Morgan Wick 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That was the implication. Darrenhusted 17:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sumnjim, the term "professional" in professional wrestling is used loosely. I can get a few friends together and create a professional wrestling league. The guy has won titles in two leagues which draw less than 500 people, which honestly I think some backyard federations get. Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Backyard wrestling promotions would be lucky to get 50 in attendance. Theperfectone 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ...and that is why they are not notable. Darrenhusted 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Backyard wrestling and independent wrestling promotions are two different things. They're in no way related. You can't get together with a few friends and create a professional wrestling promotion. It would be backyard wrestling due to you not having a legit license from training.Theperfectone 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I retract my statement above. Having a page of him is pretty pointless as he has not done nothing to be noteworthy or should I say anything extraordinary. A wiki page isn't needed if he has a page at OnlineWorldofWrestling. When he has a few more years under his belts, achieve things that matter then he could have a page. Like Bryan Danielson.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP

I'm gonna make this short and sweet, the man's a professional wrestler. He may not work for some of the big leagues but he's still a notable name with many, many fans of pro wrestling (not the casual Monday Night Raw fan perse, but rather the fan who has their heart and soul into the profession). Besides if we can have a Wikipedia on actors, musicians, films, or TV shows that aren't well known then why can't a pro wrestler who isn't very well known (by the casual fan, again) have his own profile here dedicated to him showing off his acheivements and life story? [[User DSG|DSG] 15:36 29 June 2007 — 69.116.134.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment I do not know wrestling; but I do know poor arguments when I see them. The general N guidelines for athletes apply only when there are not sport-specific guidelines; the word "professional" does not make for actual professional anything; to call backyard [whatever] a separate sport is like calling high school [whatever] as separate sport; MySpace pages don't even prove bare existence. the general principle holds that our coverage of the notable is diminished in importance when we cover the non-notable. Our pages on the truly important people in a sport--or anything else-- lose their value if we accept the unimportant. Having a page on everyone is an important goal, but for a directory, not for an encyclopedia. DGG 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Backyard wrestlers are not notable. I'll admit. I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training. Backyard wrestlers are not notable. Independent professional wrestlers are. You can't compare backyard wrestling to independent professional wrestling. You can however, compare independent professional wrestling to mainstream professional wrestling. Theperfectone 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a point I think we missed. "I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training." Really? You actually are a professional wrestler? Do you work in some promotion? This is not a sign of me coming around to your side, because now a seed has been planted in the back of my mind that you might actually be Chuck Taylor, and even if you only work for Chikara or IWA MS that would bring up conflict of interest concerns. I'm just saying, in case these suppositions might be true, which they might not. Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Duplicate of vote above; added by IP below

Look, this page isn't hurting anyone. Just keep it up, and move on with your lives. k thanks bye. — 69.0.45.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment And according to the policy, he passes. He's been trained. It says nothing about attendance. Whether you guys like it or not, he passes. There's no reason to change everything up. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm just telling the straight-up truth. Theperfectone 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The argument using attendance to prove worth is a poor one because CHIKARA and IWA-MS sell DVDs and have fans all over the world. Taylor is a rising star on the independent wrestling scene, and is becoming, or rather is, a fixture in several promotions. Bios of wrestlers should not be limited to people in ROH, TNA, or WWE. There is no reason to delete this.— 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me quote this for a moment. * Athletes:

    • Competitors who have played in a fully professional league.

Guys, it's pretty clear. He passes. What else needs to be said? Theperfectone 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • He's not notable, pro-wrestlers do not compete in a professional league, they take part in pre-arranged bouts! The bar is set higher, and Chuck does not clear it. Darrenhusted 00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Professional wrestling is a professional league, hense the word, "professional". That's kind of obvious, man. Theperfectone 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No more, take this to a talk page. Darrenhusted 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the professional wrestling project (WP:PW) has recently agreed to start getting rid of non-notable indy wrestler articles. These people have not yet done anything of worth, including Chuck Taylor. He's only performed at non-notable indy promotions and won non-notable small-time championships. Maybe if he gets called up to WWE or TNA, then he can have an article. As of right now, he's just one of a billion indy wrestlers...should they all have a Wikipedia article? No. Policy is policy. If they haven't done anything worthy of noting, then they shouldn't have a page. Also, professional wrestling is different from other sports in the terms "professional" and "amateur" are used to differentiate between types of wrestling...not level. I'd say Chuck Taylor is the equivalent of a farm-league baseball player right now...he's in the small-time. I'll say it again: he's undeserving of an article. Nikki311 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's an important comparison. Even if the different meaning of professional goes over Theperfectone's head, keep in mind that minor league baseball players are pros. But we don't include every minor league baseball player in Wikipedia. We don't even include all the guys in AAA, I don't think. See WP:BASEBALL. Morgan Wick 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, if IWA MS and Chikara weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Again, notability is not inherited. Being in a notable promotion does not imply being notable yourself. Morgan Wick 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment IWA Mid-South and Chikara are big-time indies. Small-time indies include JCW, AZW, CCW, etc. When you talk about the indy scene, he's notable enough. He's a huge name in the indy scene, has won two major Chikara tournaments and the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Championship. Can some of you please look outside of mainstream wrestling before judging who and who doesn't deserve a profile? To back my statement up, there are very notable indy names who have profiles that have never been in WWE or TNA. Theperfectone 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment People who use the notability scale for athletes as the *ONLY* standard seem to forget that "Athletes" implies competitive sports, wrestling isn't competitive as such but "booked", "Scriped", "Kayfabed" and IMO their notability guideline is somewhere between Athlete and Actor, yet not clearly either one. Also to say that "He's trained then he's a pro" and that that is the difference from Amateur wrestling is laughable, I mean did Kurt Angle not train before winning an Olympic gold medal?? Unlike most sports where there is an amateur and a pro level of the SAME sport the word "pro" here is used to distinguish it from regular wrestling which it has very little in common with and being a "Pro wrestler" is not automatically a sign of notability. Heck you can work for Miamisburg Pro Wrestling and hold the "Park Avenue" title and wrestle regularly in the High School gym in front of 20 people and 2 cats and call yourself a "Pro wrestler" - are they AUTOMATICALLY notable? Not by a mile. . (just my 2 cents) MPJ-DK 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Kayfabe? Kayfabe has nothing to do with pre-determining a match. Kayfabe is simply "staying in character". Chuck Taylor has won big-time indy titles. Once you understand that, please continue the discussion. Theperfectone 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You might want to re-read Kayfabe and professional wrestling. I suspect you actually DO know the distinction between amateur and professional wrestling, and are hoping to confuse us, or at least the closing admin, into thinking otherwise. Morgan Wick 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I said, that goes right back to what I said earlier, "staying in character". I know my wrestling stuff, maybe a little too much. I'm very familiar with the insider terms.

Theperfectone 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Watch what happens when I change the emphasis: kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I say, it includes more than "staying in character", it includes the worked nature of professional wrestling. (Yes, yes, this definition doesn't say that. Again, go read our article on kayfabe.) Morgan Wick 07:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We Get It! You like this wrestler, you even removed the AfD tag to try and save this article [1], and you placed a "hang on" tag to it when it was proposed for speedy delete [2], and you removed the PROD tag [3], but none of that does anything other than show that you really, really like this article/wrestler. But that will not save this article from deletion. Darrenhusted 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Closing Admin, the only people that have voted to keep the article are Theperfectone (who is the main editor of the article and has made no attempt to improve it), accounts that have made few to no edits outside the AfD, two users who seem to think that every wrestler (despite not being remotely notable) should have an article, and users who don't seem to understand the distinction between a "professional wrestler" and a "professional athlete". Moreover, there has been little to no improvement to the article since the beginning of the AfD, even though cleaning up and sourcing articles has saved other articles from AfDs before (I should know b/c I've helped to save a couple). Nikki311 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's funny. I see multiple "KEEP"s. Everytime I do, Darren deletes it all. He's proved he knows nothing about Chuck Taylor. He should just stay off the page. He deleted my sources because he knows I had enough sources. Not to mention, he wouldn't fix it. He just deleted it. I had around fifteen sources. If that's not enough, you're being biased. And Darren, Chuck Taylor actually used the list of themes I put on there. So don't delete them again. You told me to add to the page. Yet you keep deleting almost everything I add (that I have a source to, too). He's simply being biased because he doesn't want Chuck Taylor to have a page because he's a mark. Plain and simple. No other way to put it. None of you people even pay attention to my points. Figures. I've had a ton of them, yet they're thrown right out the window. Forget it. Wikipedia is just full of marks anyway. It's hard to get anything through your heads. I actually thought you would be intelligent on wrestling (including the indies, which the intelligence obviously isn't there), reasonable enough to listen to me and actually LISTEN to me, not ignore me. I have had valid points, whether you like it or not. I'm sure I could find a smarter bunch of intelligent fans than this. And once you delete it (for no reason), just live with the fact that I was right and you were wrong. Think about it. It can help in future wrestling debates. Goodnight. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
  2. I do think Darren went over the line here by bolting badly-formatted references instead of fixing them, but one of them was MySpace (see WP:RS and one was a free web host. He also crossed the line here. Darren, I think you aren't being civil or showing good faith by removing badly-formatted reference lists instead of improving them. However, that does not appear to have directly been to sabotage the article and I think it's incidental to whether or not to keep the article. See WP:CITE.
  3. Please provide a source for the list of themes, or if you prefer, multiple sources.
  4. What does being a mark have to do with us not wanting this article on Wikipedia? You're simply making baseless personal attacks for the sake of making personal attacks.
  5. We've responded to several of your points several times, but you haven't really listened to our responses. Morgan Wick 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
To address the editing, I tidied up the article drastically, and listing 30-something entrance songs does not make this article any better, and cut out the references because they looked a mess, I didn't feel the need to re-format them because I don't want to waste my time, and they didn't really make any difference to the content. The closing admin can see the edit history, and can make their own judgements. Darrenhusted 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think this is really absurd what you guys are doing. It's BS you guys can have pages about sexual eroticy, but you can't keep a page for a pro wrestler? And you call us bad? Wow. Anyway, you guys really should get yourselves in gear. I mean, do you want to be known as the cool site, with info about indy guys? Or the site who took a page about sexual fetishes, over a simple pro wrestler's page? Think about that one, and get back to us. TylerS 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — 69.0.45.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment A little point to those that say "Well he's in Chikara or IWA so that's enough" are missing the boat on the argument. Chikara and IWA as PROMOTIONS are notable enough to get an entry on Wikipedia - but they're not at the point where you can say that "working for IWA" is automatically a cause for inclusion - Working for the WWE (not just developmental), TNA, WCW or RoH (in the US) in a non-jobber role is where you can say they become notable JUST for doing that, if they don't work for the "big" leagues then they have to do something individually to make them notable and it needs to be Verfiable from a Reliable source. Am I the only one that thinks that a "notability scale" for Pro Wrestlers would be good? MPJ-DK 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Fair enough...maybe just working for them is not enough. But being the world champion of one company for nearly a year and winning tournaments in the other makes Taylor more than notable. And Darren, I have no idea who theperfectone is. No one asked me to come here. I clicked on Chuck Taylor myself and decided with my own free will to participate in this discussion. I think it is rude to assume that people who disagree with you have been brought here by someone else, and I don't think the fact that I make very little edits should mean that I don't get to voice my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs)
      • I agree completely (WP:AGF) and I think Darren may have been speaking figuratively. But you should realize that typically, closing admins do not weight the opinions of IP's and new users very heavily, simply because they tend not to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. Morgan Wick 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I will fully admit I don't have a good unterstanding of Wiki policy, but I am a big fan of independent wrestling, and I have a very good understanding of who and who isn't notable. ROH may be the top indy, but it is ridiculous to limit independent wrestler bios to people in that company or above. Taylor competes in main events against wrestlers from even TNA (he's wrestled Low Ki/Senshi in IWA) and his notability should not be in question given the fact that he has been the World Champion of IWA for over 8 months and is one of the top stars of CHIKARA. Since he's so young, there's no doubt that bigger things are yet to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs) — 76.98.75.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
          • Per WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that "bigger things are yet to come" can't be used to weigh whether to keep the article. Morgan Wick 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Fair enough again, but all that he's already accomplished makes him notable.
    • I think WP:PW should have had posted notability guidelines yesterday. It would have been a good way to avoid contentious deletions like this. Morgan Wick 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a contentious delete, I just think that one editor and his anon IP friends are filibustering it. Taking out SPAs and interested parties this has 5 deletes from editors of some repute, and one keep. That Theperfectone is trying so desperately to enter 36 entrance songs, shows that there is not much else that can be said about this wrestler. Now this page is off my watch list someone let me know when this is finally over. Darrenhusted 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think I have a right to add 36 entrance themes. You can't tell me I can't. It's adding his entrance themes. So it's helping in a way. It might not help a whole lot. But it is helping add information. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're saying that's NOT "Contentious"?? it fits my definition of the word ;) MPJ-DK 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, this is a review of the "sources" you are trying to add to the article:

http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
3. http://www.chikarapro.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
4. http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/index.html (Taylor's name appears nowhere on the page)
5. http://www.answers.com/topic/brandon-prophet (Wikipedia mirror, can't be RS for obvious reasons, and doesn't mention Taylor)
6. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20632.shtml (sounds decent, but just a set of match reports for a hodge-podge of different promotions - has he had an article ABOUT HIM?)
7. http://wrestling.insidepulse.com/articles/68365/2007/06/23/young-lions-cup-v-night-one--reading-pa.html (sounds decent, and more focused, but on Chikara, though does praise him; but I've heard bad things about Inside Pulse)
8. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20594.shtml (same as last PWTorch one)
9. http://www.smartmarkvideo.com/main/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=97573 (basically says he was on a DVD, and comes off as WP:SPAM)
10. http://iwamidsouth.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=IWA&action=display&thread=1142730710 (message board, not RS)
11. http://wigglysworld.com/chikara/Site/chikara.html (I don't even know what this is)
12. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20586.shtml (it looks like he appears in one match... and same as Inside Pulse without the bad rep)
13. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=38045 (message board)
14. http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Chikara+Podcast-A-Go-Go/5615 (Now I think I know how #11 applies; but I doubt it's RS)
15. http://www.mopsquad.com/artman2/publish/Indie_Upcoming_Events_443/CZW_s_Cage_of_Death_VIII.html (link doesn't work)
There are a few sources that might qualify on that list, but remember that WP:N and WP:BIO say he has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Trivial coverage does not establish notability. If you are trying to estabilish notability using sources, you might not get as much slack as you want with that list. You might get some, but... Morgan Wick 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment That IWA Mid-South message board link is a post straight from Ian Rotten promoting and hyping up the upcoming show. It's definitely notable enough. They handle all of their card updates on the message board. Theme list, straight from Chuck Taylor himself... http:// blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31548154&blogID=181896098&Mytoken=2668AB76-7D47-4603-8AB617E25DCE107328413307

Yeah, I know it's MySpace. But he typed it himself. I know it isn't criteria according to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to prove anything for Wikipedia's criteria. I'm just proving that he did use those themes to you guys. Theperfectone 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment we have 35k of discussion, someone needs to close this. Darrenhusted 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, more importantly, the five-day period is up. Morgan Wick 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just for future reference, I suggest someone who is an indy fan judge these indy wrestlers from now on. I think it would cause a lot less problems and things would run a lot smoother if the people in the pro wrestling project knew more about indy wrestling. Because in the indy world, Chuck Taylor is a huge name. But a fan who watches only mainstream wrestling wouldn't know that. What do you guys think? Theperfectone 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I think that ANYONE is allowed to vote on a AFD, can't limit it to a very narrow group. I also think that you can be an Indy fan and still vote delete here - it's not like it's a "big bad WWE fans Vs us poor little indy fans" here. Just for future reference if the article had passed WP:V and WP:R there wouldn't be any problems at all and if those that argue for keep had read both policies and found reliable sources for the article then we wouldn't be 36K into a deletion conversation because then it wouldn't even be put up for AFD. MPJ-DK 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think you misunderstood me. I meant when people report the article in the first place and label them a non-notable wrestler. If we had some very educated fans on indy wrestling in the Wiki Professional Wrestling Project, that wouldn't happen. They would know who deserves an article and who doesn't. Instead, it would be fans that only watch mainstream wrestling and they don't have any education on indy wrestling. So they would think Chuck Taylor is a no-name. I seriously doubt there will be indy fans out there to say Chuck Taylor doesn't deserve an article. The major indy promotions are ROH, IWA Mid-South, PWG, Chikara, CZW, and maybe a couple more. Anyone who has won titles or tournaments in those, most likely deserves an article on Wikipedia. Now, if you try to make an article on an indy wrestler who wrestles for a small indy promotion that no big indy fan has heard of and has even won the World Title, then that's the time when they're non-notable and should be deleted from Wikipedia. But for someone like Chuck Taylor, he deserves an article because he won major titles in big indy promotions that most people have heard of, that being IWA Mid-South and Chikara. The other two promotions are what I would call non-notable, even though I've heard of them. Most wouldn't know them. But he has won the IWA World Heavyweight Title in IWA MS and two major Chikara tournaments in Chikara. That would no doubt make him notable. Theperfectone 1:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • World? How are any of those titles "world" titles? IWA World Heavyweight Title? Really? Darrenhusted 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The title has been defended outside of the continent. If a title has been defended outside of the continent in which the promotion was started in, it is considered a "World Heavyweight Title". And this article does have a source. I've seen some WWE wrestlers who had never had a source before and the article was just tagged. Theperfectone 3:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment and I think you're missing my mai... no my only point is that if an article fullfil WP:V and WP:RS then it doesn't matter what people think, it's a keeper. It's pretty simple really and it doesn't require anyone to have specialist knowledge to see if an article deserves a wikipedia article. MPJ-DK 06:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Taylor is the current reigning IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion. This is a belt that has been held by people like AJ Styles, Arik Cannon and Jimmy Jacobs. Those three are big time, well known independent professional wrestlers. Chuck Taylor is in the same class as those three. He is also the current reigning CHIKARA Young Lions Cup Champion. This is a championship that has been held by guys like Jigsaw, Shane Storm and Larry Sweeney. Those are three of CHIKARA's biggest stars. To say the least, I believe Chuck Taylor is a very notable independent wrestler. 24.128.99.180 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — 24.128.99.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Somehow I doubt those people are going to cite being IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion at the top of their resumes. Morgan Wick 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


KEEP His notablity has been proven. He is a reigning champion has won seceral tournys in various promotions, more than anyone on this page has accomplished. People KNOW who he is regardless of the audience numbers because Chikara Pro sells DVDs all over the world. Hulk Hogan, no but notable, yes.--EdWood 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

His notability has not been proven, and all the SPAs and fan accounts adding to this AfD by simply saying "he is notable" are proving nothing, are you looking at the article? Chaos Pro Wrestling, Hex Gage, Toby Klein, Team FIST, Niles Young all redlinks, Player Uno was sucessfully Afd-ed yesterday, Richochet, Max Boyer and Beef Wellington don't have articles, what does this tell you? Find some non-trivial, non-Spam links for Chuck. Darrenhusted 18:05, 6 July 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.