Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montez Ford

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montez Ford[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)

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a member of WWE's televised roster who has been prominently featured for over a year with numerous TV victories. Clearly notable. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He barely has any notable matches. He doesn't have any notable feud or storyline. Just random matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could say that about almost every single wrestler in WWE at present. Dawkins and Ford are part of the TV roster, the fact that they don't currently have a 'notable storyline' is completely irrelevant. They have been featured and pushed on TV for a year and won dozens of matches. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the sources (currently there are 8). 4 of them are wwe.com which I consider WP:PRIMARY for this and cannot be used to establish notability. 1 is just a photo of the new NXT class, and 1 is cagematch which is a RS but not for establishing notability. The Wrestling Observer report is just a basic injury report, nothing to establish notability. That leaves just the Miami Herald article, which to me is not enough to establish notability. - Galatz ^Talk 17:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The I.P.'s comments don't particularly cite policy; mind you, neither do User:HHH Pedrigree's. User:Galatz's comments do address WP:GNG, but deal only with the sources currently in the article—they do not appear to consider the possibility that other sources may exist (or they may not). I think there's room for further discussion to accomplish something here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage. What I found were listings of results, fight announcements, injury reports, etc. WP has traditionally viewed pro wrestlers as entertainers and I see nothing to show he meets that SNG. Competing for a developmental promotion also doesn't support a claim of notability nor do the article's references. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others, it just feels WP:TOOSOON. He fails WP:ENT for the time being.LM2000 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 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.