Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Kid
Source: 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UK Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article shows no sign of notability. I've found no reliable sources to establish this notability yet. Just being trained by Shawn Michaels does not show notability to me.--WillC 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- just a basic google search for "UK Kid wrestling" throws up something- such as [1] or [2], though whether either of these count as WP:RS is another matter. HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've never heard of either of them and as far as WP:PW's style guide says, they aren't. So I'm not sure either. All I got were blogs and no named sites. So I'm not sure.--WillC 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I think it goes some way to notability. What we really need is the author to dig something up, otherwise my "keep" argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. I disagree with large parts of WP:N but couldn't agree more strongly with WP:RS and this seems to fall foul of both. HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've never heard of either of them and as far as WP:PW's style guide says, they aren't. So I'm not sure either. All I got were blogs and no named sites. So I'm not sure.--WillC 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficient reliable, third-party sources exist to establish notability. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. These, in addition to discussions on several promotions' websites, more than satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am working on a couple of other articles right now, but I would be happy to expand and source this article in the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. I'd be surprised if any one of those, on its own, would satisfy WP:RS but the body of evidence makes a compelling case HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sun and the Texas Wrestling Academy are fine IMO. The rest I'm unsure of.--WillC 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers 3, 4, and 8 are from the websites of actual newspapers, which definitely qualify as reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sun and the Texas Wrestling Academy are fine IMO. The rest I'm unsure of.--WillC 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. I'd be surprised if any one of those, on its own, would satisfy WP:RS but the body of evidence makes a compelling case HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (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.