Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Jones (wrestler)

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 as unverifiable in reliable sources. · jersyko talk 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Jones (wrestler)

Tony Jones (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • KEEP I've created an extensive list of why I believe he meets notability requirements in the talk page when I removed the previous deletion request. He satisifies 4 seperate notability tests when only 1 is needed, what am I missing? Sqweak 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) — Sqweak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Your list basically comes down to four points which you repeat (three of which you repeat), "NCAA California Collegiate Champion" (there are hundreds of NCAA wrestlers without pages, and this alone is not enough to justify his page), Named to Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "PWI 500" from 1998-2005 (500 wrestlers means a lot are not notable), Held titles in All Pro Wrestling and Ultimate Pro Wrestling (A WWE affiliated "talent scout"/development territory) (essesntially winning an indy title does not make a wrestler notable), mentioned in "Beyond the Mat" (being seen in a film nine years ago does not make a wrestler notable, and if he was notable he would have been prominent in the WWE by now). Darrenhusted 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Darren, the only thing I repeated was that he was featured in "Beyond the Mat" as that satisfies both "published source" and "enduring historical record" notability tests. While they're similar, the fact he competed in NCAA (satisfying "highest level of amateur sports") and won NCAA California Collegiate Championship ("recognized awards or honors") are different things. I'd agree that individually these accomplishments may not satisfy notability but when combined, and especially his being featured in a major documentary, the page should stay. For comparison, wikipedia features pages on both Arthur Agee and William Gates (from another documentary Hoop Dreams) who had arguably less success in their field than Tony Jones. Additionally, tagging me as a SPA is flash judgement and borders on a personal attack. My first edit was over a year ago in, surprise, a professional wrestling article. I happened to look up Tony while rewatching "Beyond The Mat" and felt motivated to contribute to prevent what I saw as a valid article from being deleted because he's not "notable enough". He satisfies several notability requirements, a lack of success is not a lack of notability. Sqweak 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hoop Dreams is a not the same, Arthur and William were the subject of that film, Tony is not. And although Tony has had success there are very few NCAA wrestlers on this site (check the winning teams [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and APW is a wrestling school, not affiliated with WWE, and UPW only became affiliated with WWE last year. So if being in a film, being NCAA or wrestling for APW or UPW isn't enough to bring notability then what reason is there for his notability? Darrenhusted 11:50, 30 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. Needs references but otherwise ok article. Callelinea 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This user copied and pasted this same comment in to a number of AfD debates to make a point.
  • Comment, I think you should read WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, Callelinea. Darrenhusted 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't it interesting that we have a biographical article that contains virtually no biographical information? Notable or otherwise, I'm concerened that this article suffers from a severe lack of content. Calgary 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable enough. Should probably have given this the benefit of the doubt rather than relisting. —Xezbeth 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't look notable enough to me. None of those 'championships and accomplishments' are particularly significant, and there's a lack of external references. Terraxos 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete he's wrestles in A match in the WWE... not notable at all.Balloonman 06:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It also does not prove his notability. Nikki311 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero VERIFIABILITY from RELIABLE SOURCES. -- Y not? 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Y: must meet WP:V. And I have a very hard time understanding these minor wrestling leagues, surely, a notable wrestler would meet WP:N's general criterion and this doesn't. Mangojuicetalk 18:49, 12 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.