Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Hughes

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 keep. —Kurykh 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Hughes

Mike Hughes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non Notable wrestler, de-PROD-ed. Darrenhusted 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:31, 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 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The article is sourced and well-written, and Hangman Hughes has had a notable career in Puerto Rico. DanZero 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the article is not well written, a slew of redlinks don't look good. Darrenhusted 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, With all the AfD's going on around here, can a slew of redlinks be anything but expected? --DanZero 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, there are always AfDs going on, and you'll find that yesterday nearly 30 wrestling articles were deleted through PRODs. The redlinks in this article are for articles no yet created not for those deleted, doesn't change the fact that the wrestler is not notable. Darrenhusted 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep pending better establishment of notability via non-trivial treatments in reliable independent sources. Which may well be available, judging by a brief web search. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as the red links don't bode well. Bearian 18:21, 2 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.