Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief Big Heart

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. I think concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination have been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Big Heart[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was deprodded without improvement. Currently it has zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. And searches turned up a few mentions, but can't find anything in-depth. Was sent to draft for improvement, but returned to mainspace without review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving articles to draftspace is never a solution to perceived lack of notability, the likelyhood that an article like this is improved in draftspace is incredibly small.★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not correct. Just because I can't find online sources does not mean that sources do not exist. There have probably been well over a hundred articles I've draftified which have subsequently been improved enough to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - There have probably also been hundreds draftified that ended up never getting touched again (regardless of sources existing) because half of editors (let alone regular people) know about draftspace even being a thing. Regardless, there is nothing that can be done in draftspace that can't be done better with the article still in mainspace.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That is partially correct, there are sources online as well, but many such pieces of information are anecdotes. I got in touch with Chief Big Heart's daughter through wrestling forums, but then I realised those aren't to be taken at face value without any documented proof. Alex Emeritus (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well known wrestler in the 50s-60s. McPhail (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional wrestling articles are an awkward fit for an encyclopedia because of the industry deliberately blurs fiction and reality. But in this case there is just enough in the way of reliable sources validating Chief Big Heart's significance within the world of wrestling (e.g. the books published by Scarecrow Press (imprint of Rowman & Littlefield) and ABC-CLIO, even if they are mentions that don't count as SIGCOV), in addition to the many newspaper articles. If there are specific claims, sources, or issues that are problematic, I would recommend focusing on flagging and/or fixing those, rather than deleting the entire article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded and improved somewhat significantly since this AfD nomination. This project has always neglected historical wrestling articles, largely due to a lack of interest amongst editors, but also because coverage from that era is hard to come by. I am satisfied that WP:SIGCOV has been met by the current version of the article.LM2000 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2022 (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.