Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McManus

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. Secret ^account 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McManus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only barely makes a claim of notability, and it's highly unlikely that this person meets WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source isn't enough coverage, no evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-focus. He's not notable for the things included in the article (WWA) but I feel he is notable for what he has done since, partially because of some financial troubles. But there certainly is coverage out there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

I think there's enough there. Nick, LibStar? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's sufficient to be honest Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen to know why (combined, mind you) those wouldn't be considered significant coverage in reliable sources? There are articles specifically focused on him in national newspapers. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that those were just the sources I could find on the first page of Google results. Others include 6, 7, 8, 0 and 10. Granted, some of those are "gossip" type stories but when national papers think you're notable enough to note (prominently) who you're "with" and where you live, you're surely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Significant coverage in reliable sources includes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by those above indicate that this subject meets GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources demonstrates that this topic meets the GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it now meets the GNG but barely. Frankly up and down cycles of entertainment promotors don't seem all that notable but it would be nice if the article could reflect the references a bit better.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.