Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brimstone (wrestler)

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. It was a procedural nomination, and the consensus to keep is unanimous. Non-admin closure.

Brimstone (wrestler)[edit]

An anonymous user tagged this article for speedy deletion, leaving the following note:

non-notable wrestler; if for some reason this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (I think it does), could somebody please put it up for afd as a procedural nomination for failing notability requirements and being unreferenced, and perhaps even being spam? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make an account at this time. Thanks in advance. YechielMan 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was in multiple televized wrestling matches for notable wrestling organizations and has a comic book character based on his wrestling persona. Don't see how that is not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are more assertions of notability than in the majority of wrestling biography articles. The article is comprehensively referenced and relatively well written. McPhail 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In agreeing with the other users, there seems to be more than enough notability especially compared to MANY other wrestling biography articles on wiki. RingWars2007 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realize that as the original creator of this article, my opinion is technically "biased" in favor of keeping the article, but I felt the fact that he has appeared in a range of media sources was enough to qualify him under the notability factor. I have noticed in my work on the to do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling, that many other wrestling-related wiki articles are either not sourced, poorly sourced, or seem non-notable (and not necessary). I had hoped this article was a step above those, and am still hoping! —YeLLeY511 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge, cover everything we can find sources for. I was surprised to see so many sources on the wrestler, who I have never heard of before seeing the article being worked on in recent edits. Probably the anon who suggested it for speedy deletion hadn't heard of him either. Deletionism is so against the spirit of Wikipedia that it sickens me. Speedy keep I say, pretty much everyone is agreeing on this. KV(Talk) 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's quite notable, and the article isn't badly written. — Wenli 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of sources, but peppered with redlinks. Ab e g92contribs 12:04, 31 March 2007 (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.