Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Darchangelo

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 delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Darchangelo

Contested prod. Yet another non-notable independent wrestler. No sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:A, 9 Google hits and not a reliable source among them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, I was in the process of updated the article when it was nominated (literally one minute after the prod tag was removed [1]). This article is admittedly in serious need of a cleanup, however the main complaint of the article has been resolved (both his ringname and real name being misspelled). However, this would be apparent to anyone who had read the article that something was obviously wrong when none of his career highlights showed up on a google search. MadMax 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You removed the prod without improvement when the proposed deletion wasn't until April 7. I stand by my nomination, independent wrestlers are by and large non notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I removed the prod in the process of improving it. I only noticed the afd tag during an edit conflict during initial changes. MadMax 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And as I stated the article wouldn't have been deleted until April 7 at the earliest, so you could have removed it when you had finished couldn't you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair anyone can remove a prod if they object to deletion of the article for any reason. I shall wait a few days before voting and see how it looks then. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and I'm not objecting to the removal of the prod. The point I'm making is that the article could have been improved first, then the prod removed, couldn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could have indeed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you nominated it before you saw any changes I had made. I had assumed I had a resonable time to improve the article before its nomination, however, had I known I had less then a minute then I wouldn't have removed the tag. As you've made your feelings quite clear on the subject, I honestly don't believe there is anything I could do to improve this or any other article that you wouldn't have an objection to. MadMax 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Article has been here six months, yet still no evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:A. No improvement. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Seinfreak37 19:44, 10 April 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.