Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Barr

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. W.marsh 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Barr

Non-notable Weatherman90 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless made convincingly notable. Probably an interesting guy, but not enough to show notability. Chris 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being from Portland myself, I can tell you that he is a very recognizable name in the region. I'm sure lots more stuff will be added. He has tons of google hits. Williamb 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Tons of google hits?" Not even close. A search for "Sandy Barr" doesn't even yield 10,000 results. For comparison, a search of my username, Weatherman90, yields over 13,000 results. Do I get an article? Weatherman90 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is no question as of this point that the article now contains an independent reliable source. Canoe Networks, through their SLAM Sports section, is a very notable and reliable source that qualifies as an independent secondary source for WP:RS. This article is on my "to do" list, as can be seen by viewing the talk page, and I'm sure other sources can and will be found. While I believe notability can be argued concerning this individual, I should point out that lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy. Further, WP:N is, in itself, only a guideline, it is not a policy; the policy one should look at when determining "notability" is WP:V, which this article has no problem with. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT paper. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does have a problem with WP:V, as it's sourced direct from the subject. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing directly from the subject (primary source) is appropriate (unless the info is likely to be challenged) as long as there is a WP:V secondary source. There is a WP:V independent secondary source for the article now (there wasn't when you voted), so frankly, you are wrong Hack, there isn't a problem with WP:V. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Point It's hard to say the individual is the source when someone else is writing about their death...man Hack...you crack me up. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I'm not wrong. What is the secondary source? A book that confirms he was a wrestler? That doesn't confirm anything else, you're sourcing direct from quotes from the subject of the article. I suggest you read the sources you've added before making any further flippant remarks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I've been directed by you to read what a secondary source is numerous times, and apparently where you directed me to read was incorrect...so, since the pages you directed me to where not accurate about what a secondary source is, please tell, what is a secondary source?

The book referenced does not substantiate that he was a wrestler, it substantiates that he was a wrestling promoter (which makes me wonder how much attention you've given to the article in order to make an informed decision and comment). The Canoe Networks article substantiates most of the rest of the information in the article (which if you had read the Canoe article you would have known that). Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (they are a Canadian based company that publish on a WIDE variety of subjects). Any information not sourced from the article is acceptable even thought it comes from an interview with the subject at hand as it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. So, unless your educating me on what a secondary source is was wrong...you are still wrong. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've paid considerably more attention than you, as is already apparent by the source you added. I assume you missed where it said Barr told the DutchSavage.com website, which happens to be the source that was there beforehand? Please provide independent verification for everything that is sourced from a direct quote, as I consider it to be self serving. Without independent sources it's impossible for a neutral, balanced article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*SIGH* So let me point out again, information that comes from an interview with the subject at hand is acceptable when it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which this article does. Add that to the fact that information in the article was also contributed through interviews with Bob Leanoard, Buddy Rose, Ed Wiskowski, Dutch Savage, Velvete McIntyre and Ring Around the Northwest, and you begin to see that the article does have more credibility than you would give it; which tends to support the fact that Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So, everything remains kosher. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep slam.canoe.ca is a reliable source for wrestling articles, the article certainly could do with more improvement. But for what is there, seems to show fair notability to me. Govvy 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barr has considerable local notability and a fair amount of national notability. Now has coverage from local news channel: KPTV, which further shows local notability. I expect The Oregonian would pick up the story soon. Katr67 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's that Oregonian link. Katr67 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fullfills the requirements of Notability and verifiability, it's a no-brainer keep in it's current form MPJ-DK 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT--This guy is famous in Portland AND is very well known through the entire pro wrestling community. He was influential in getting many famous wrestlers their start. If people think he isn't notable, they don't know what they are talking about.

Keep Barr is well-known in Portland, Oregon, and through much of the Pacific Northwest and in Western Canada. I live about a mile from the flea market and would be happy to post a photo of the sign outside with his name on it if that would help the case. dreadpiraterobins 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sandy Barr's has been a landmark and a gathering place (Tuesday night wrestling matches) for many years in St. Johns, the northernmost neighborhood in Portland, OR. If St. Johns is worthy of a page (and it has one) then I think Sandy Barr is notable enough.

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.