Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Kleinrock

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Kleinrock

Kevin Kleinrock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod by User:Kkleinrock, which speaks volumes. Non notable wrestling promoter, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom semper fictilis 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Mwelch 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. References have now been added since I wrote the above. Mwelch 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've expanded the article and provided references establishing notability which meets similar articles on wrestling promoters (ex. Tod Gordon or Jim Crockett, Jr.). MadMax 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless someone can prove the references are bogus, this is amply sourced and mention in a wrestler magazine, a book and multiple newspapers clearly makes it notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning towards delete. I noticed no one had mentioned google hits. Article actually turns up plentiful Google hits with almost all referring to the subject matter at hand, but I'm still not sure this lives up to notability standards. Based on comments and Suriel's keep vote, along with extended research into the article's subject manner itself, I'm changing my vote to Keep. PeteShanosky 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The newspaper references aren't bogus, but they are definitely not non-trivial sources. The extent to which Kleinrock features in each one can be seen here, here, here and here. The relevant text of the book isn't available on Amazon Online Reader or Google Books, but I'll wager the XPW attempt to buyout ECW is covered in a couple of pages at best, and Kleinrock has a trivial mention just like the newspaper articles. Per WP:BIO trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've stuck in several more refs. I'm satisfied that the subject has made a unique and innovative contribution to his field of entertainment. Looking at Google his name appears all over the place. Not always in a complimentary fashion but people are talking about him ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the references provided by Suriel1981, I believe that this passes WP:BIO and is actually one of the better wrestling-related articles we have to offer (meaning top 1%). Burntsauce 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep enough has been added to prove notability IMO - I am shocked that there aren't any references to "XPW - Bleeding was only HALF the job" in the article, pleasantly shocked ;) MPJ-DK 20:43, 17 April 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.