Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonnie Stewart (2nd nomination)

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. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Stewart[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted in 2007 for being badly-sourced self-promotion (which, if memory serves, contained a dose of outright libel against at least one individual who Jonnie Stewart disliked). It was recreated in 2008 and speedily deleted. It was recreated again in 2015 by a single-purpose account which openly admitted being a PR account working for Jonnie Stewart and complained that the previous deletions were by "unfair wikipedia editors". The only substantial edits have been carried out by single-purpose accounts. This article is irredeemable garbage and exists only to pretend that a non-notable minor-league jobber was a celebrity superstar. The article should be salted to prevent this happening again in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say delete, I really really tried to look, but honestly I was kinda shocked by how little I could find. I can find more reliable coverage on someone like Matt Hart who's a rookie than this guy, which is pretty weird and chocking but somehow true. I honestly couldn't find a single great source for this guy. I have a feeling that this may be one of those cases where when the person passes away maybe people will talk about for their life but for whatever reason there is pretty much none right now.★Trekker (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a purely political point of view, my vote is a confident delete. I also agree with Trekker above based on a before search, but I'm happy to keep the article if there's notability from a wrestling point of view, something I would have difficulty establishing/researching on my own on top of the couple searches I've already done (which confirm my delete vote). SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and since this has been recreated multiple times now, perhaps it needs a SALT - Galatz ^Talk 00:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's impossible to properly evaluate his notability or lack thereof as a wrestler, because eight of the 11 "references" here are "The named reference was invoked but never defined" errors — and of the three that are actually functional, one is a Blogspot blog and one is a directory entry, so there's only one piece of reliable source coverage that even starts to build a case for notability — but it's covering him in a context (an unsuccessful candidacy in a political party primary) that is not a notability claim regardless of referencing, so it's not actually helping. This might potentially become keepable if somebody could pile some actual referencing onto his wrestling career — but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG for his sports career, and neither the political stuff nor getting mixed up with Jon Stewart by one city's local media once counts for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2018 (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.