Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draven Cage

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. JIP | Talk 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draven Cage

Non-notable wrestler from a non-notable wrestling organisation. Although the page is expansive it does not merit an article in the first place. --- Lid 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Almost all of the Google hits are MySpace profiles, YouTube videos, and other social networking-related stuff. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Peephole 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NO less deserving than many UK wrestlers. It would be a more comprehensive cover of the UK wrestling scene if this is left in. Leave. Darkie
  • Delete per nom Martinp23 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How can someone become notable, if any information about them is deleted? This then prohibits people learning/finding out about that person or the promotion he works for (which is what I understood Wikipedia is all about, learning and finding out information). On a side note, the promotion is listed in the Wikipedia article about the British Wrestling Scene. It would seem unfair to delete one UK wrestlers article, while leaving another on the site. There are many other pages for wrestlers that are stubs, containing nothing of any detail about that person, yet they are allowed to remain, even though they have little to no value to them. I'd have the article left as it is. HDC7777
  • Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not THE source of knowledge. It doesn't meet notability requirements or WP:BIO. --- Lid 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is obtained through coverage in the general media, not through coverage in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias cover things that are already notable. GRBerry 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How many US wrestlers are featured on the site, yet have little to no general media coverage? I can understand non-UK residents not knowing/caring about UK wrestlers or promotions, but not to the point of deleting this article, while allowing articles on US wrestlers that feature very little or no information. Some of them have the name of the person and that they are wrestlers, and that is all. How can that be more viable than this entry, when it tells the person next to nothing about them? There must be lots of articles about wrestlers (UK and non-UK) that are less worthy (either through content, notability or general coverage of the subject) than this article, yet they remain on the site with no problems or discussions in regards to them. Why is this article different to them? On a side note, surely the link to the LWL homepage can verify the accuracy of the details in that part of the article. The matches and subsequent results are all there, as is Draven Cage's LWL profile, moves and upcoming matches. To me, this is verification of authenticity in regards to that section. And I've added a link to an interview from Wrestling101 that has Red Lightning (another UK wrestler) discussing his early days, and he states in the interview details that verify the parts in the article about CSF, Colin McKay, the WILD promotion and that Draven helped train the students. I would assume that comes under independent sources for information.HDC7777
  • If these articles can remain on the site without deletion (or discussion of deletion), then this article should too. As they have little to no information about the person, yet they seem to be notable in the criteria of Wikipedia.

And that is just a few that I found in about ten minutes of searching. So I would assume that there are a lot more articles on pro-wrestlers that are like that. What makes those articles more worthy than this one?

  • I went through that list posted, and I knew most of the names. Most of the names you listed are people that use to work for WWF, WCW and/or ECW. People know them. Just because they have small articles, doesn't make them less notable. Draven isn't that notable or known, so it should be deleted. RobJ1981 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that they worked for mainstream organisations, but the articles for those wrestlers tell the reader very little if nothing about the wrestler featured. I can't understand what purpose those articles serve that this one doesn't. A mainstream wrestling fan would be hard pushed to recognise any of the wrestlers listed, especially in non-US countries. To be fair, RobJ1981, you run a website called Pro Wrestling Addicts, which, to me, means you would know more than the average person. So for YOU to say you know/recognise most of the names on there isn't a fair comparison, especially if you are not a follower of the whole UK independent wrestling scene. Not all UK wrestlers work for 1PW, and that seems to be (along with 3CW) the only UK wrestlers on the site. There are countless UK wrestlers who don't wrestle for these companies, but that doesn't mean that they are worthless.
  • As a side note to the above comment, I would assume, RobJ1981, that Draven Cage is now a little more notable, now that people would have read about him, checked the links, sources, etc. Some of the names listed above have no links or sources applied to the article about them, so I don't see why they have more merit than this one. Draven Cage may not be well known in the US, and the UK scene is hard to actually make a name due to lack of TV exposure (which TWC has done a good job of rectifying). But I dare say, if you asked the average UK fan about those named, they would have no clue who you were referring to. I understand (and indeed respect) your desire to retain the integrity of Wikipedia, but I fail to see how this will undermine that in the first place. It is obvious by the links provided that the article is based on facts from sources (the interview, the LWL homepage, etc) rather than just used for filler material. The article is information on a UK wrestler, that lets anyone who pops onto it know who he is and what he does. The links verify this, so that fullfils certain criteria. The only one that I can see standing is the notability one. And as I said, that is something that can be addressed in time. Especially as you, RobJ1981, know about him and can add him to your website as another wrestler from the UK.
  • Delete Non-notable; happy to consider any other wrestler articles brought here.--Runcorn 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that it was a five day discussion. Isn't the above comment too late to be considered? When will a decision be made? I think it should stay (obviously) as it adds to the information available about the WHOLE UK scene.
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.