Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Dodge

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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Dodge[edit]

Delete and salt. NN, Vanity. His reference is his Angelfire website. I have also requested we delete (and salt) his friends page which had been deleted in the past. EndlessDan 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, please also delete the pic.--EndlessDan 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Cheers, L A X 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this article should be deleted, because it is for an up-and-coming Professional Wrestler, who's early history will be valuable once he becomes more famous. Furthermore, The reference is not his Angelfire site, it is the site to a company that he works for, that he also owns, but is still as reliable as any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.109.121.23 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) — 141.109.121.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as non-notable. ~~The one link on the page is currently 404, and~~ no other references are given. In any event, the site as described by the anonymous editor from 141.109.121.23 would not establish the existence of independent media coverage. If he is on his way up, an article on him can be recreated once he has made it. He is at present non-notable, however. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and RJC. Nikki311 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, comments about "once he's famous" it itself shows he's not notable even to the guy defending the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't even the best part of that rebuttal. I liked how it wasn't his site it was linking to, it belongs to the company he works for...which he owns. --EndlessDan 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per RJC. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (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.