Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Sampson

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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Sampson

Fred Sampson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up a Fred Sampson (that isn't a wrestler), fan sites such as OWW with Fred Sampson on it, and so on. The TV.com link just lists his WWE appearances: which isn't that notable either. WWE is known to hire indy wrestlers for matches and segments. Because Fred has done a bunch, he is notable for Wikipedia? I don't think so. If we had wrestling bio articles for everyone WWE has used for matches and segments: Wikipedia would be flooded with tons of cruft. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this article because there are links for this wrestler on other articles on wiki. I know he isn't majorly noticeable but I don't like seeing links that have nothing on them. I did do some checking and a google search brings back this many results "1,300 articles for "Fred Sampson" #wrestler". There is some interesting facts for him, I included references and source martial with him. He is on the WWE scout list, hasn't had a full contract. But has had Heat and Velocity jobs.
  • Comment Your not entering it right, The search you are performing is looking for two separate terms. You want to do "Fred Simpson" #wrestler because using the # sign looks at the articles for where exactly Fred Simpson is located and finds if it has the wrestler word attached in that same area. This is the better way to search using relative terms. Govvy 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Commment If I include the '#' I get 93 unique hits in English. It's you who isn't looking for unique hits. One Night In Hackney 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Commment One Night In Hackney, That search results 1,240. :/ Govvy 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment No, it does not. Did you actually click the link? Do you understand what a unique hit actually is? I've already explained it's unique hits in English, and 356 unique hits in all languages. Looking for unique hits is the true measure of Google data, instead of just looking at the figure on the initial search page. One Night In Hackney 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nope, I really don't get ya, I have no idea what you mean, I know what results I get and know exactly what you entered. And you obviously get different results to me. Also I know that google does meta searches, I've even tried that, but it really is useless results for that. Govvy 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I know exactly how you got that result. You typed in your search string, looked at the first page, then claimed 1200+ hits. However if you keep looking through the pages of results (no need to do it one at a time) you eventually get to the last page which gives you the number of unique hits. See here for more information, it only returns one hit per domain and disregards substantially similar pages. One Night In Hackney 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Results your way Govvy 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't my way. Your end of the URL has the "&filter=0" qualifier, so you won't see unique hits. Take off the qualifier and you get 346 unique hits, and if you search for English only we're back to 93 hits again. One Night In Hackney 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, I think the user RobJ1981 was doing this to attack me. Govvy 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • delete per nom-Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chris 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment why do you believe this user wishes to attack you? That is a different matter entirely, but needs explanation. Chris 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment because I felt it was, a feeling you get. But I really do feel that this article is not that bad and I have a feeling that Fred Sampson will be in the WWE in about a years time. Just something about this person, great wrestling ability, good personality, I got that gut feeling that this is one of those characters that will make it pretty far. Guess have to wait and see! Govvy 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN wrestler, hasn't been in any notable capacity in major promotions, just a bunch of independent work, who come dime a dozen. Booshakla 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is being scouted for WWE, I say keep the article Kris Classic 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No verifiable reliable source that he's being "scouted" for WWE anyway, and WP is not a crystal ball anyway. If he becomes notable later, recreate the article. One Night In Hackney 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Vassyana 12:25, 1 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.