Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Gulas

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 of the debate was no consensus, which defaults to a keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Gulas

Real person, but I think notability is suspect (but not so obviously non-notable that I was comfortable speedy deleting it). Still, delete. --Nlu 08:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - as notable as most of the other people in professional wrestling that have Wikipedia articles. However, I strongly agree that it's in dire need of a rewrite. B.Wind 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I can vouch that the bio is essentially accurate (I don't know about "King B", though.) Whether that means he is notable depends on one's regard for wrestling notability. I am a guilty old fan, so I take a mild view. Xoloz 03:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  

Relisting in hopes of prompting a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. This page appears to show notability see [1]. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• It needs more than cleaning. It needs a total rewrite. Because of that, it could be deleted (and wait for competent content) or be rewritten by a wrastlin' fan. As it is, though, it's all in one big gush. If sent to cleanup, send with a predisposition to return to AfD if not actually cleaned and significantly improved by the roll off point. Geogre 14:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the name can be added to WP:RA if the guy passes WP:BIO. Of course, this becomes a keep if, by the time this AfD is closed, there are actual signs that the article is going to receive the attention it needs. — Haeleth Talk 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete awful article and if he's that notable somone that can actually make it into an encyclopedic article will recreate it.--MONGO 03:32, 1 December 2005 (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.